similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Remove instruction within a bundle

Hi Jakob, 2012/6/6 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk <mailto:stoklund at 2pi.dk>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com <mailto:ivanllopard at gmail.com>> wrote: > We have a new BE for a VLIW-like processor and I'm currently working on > instruction bundles. Ideally, I'd like to have bundles

On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > We have a new BE for a VLIW-like processor and I'm currently working on > instruction bundles. Ideally, I'd like to have bundles *before* RA to > model certain constraints, e.g. the exposed one by Tzu-Chien a while ago > in his thread >

I should probably voice our point of view as well… Hexagon is another VLIW target with “non standard” demands for bundling. I think Jacob has summarized current view of bundles as “black box” rather precise, but I should say that our view of bundles is way more fluid and open than that. To avoid going into lengthy discussion, let me just say – bundling for us is not a single occurrence, but

Hi, We have a new BE for a VLIW-like processor and I'm currently working on instruction bundles. Ideally, I'd like to have bundles *before* RA to model certain constraints, e.g. the exposed one by Tzu-Chien a while ago in his thread http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2005-September/004798.html In order to build bundles, we have added a new bottom-up MIScheduler, right after

The attached patch fixes bugs related to MachineBasicBlock::iterator. I don't have any test cases that reproduce on an X86 machine the problems that this patch fixes (these bugs were found when make check was run on a mips board). Please review. The first part just ensures that iterator I is not instr_end() before it invokes isInsideBundle(). The second part changes the signature of spillAll

Is it safe or legal to call isInsideBundle even when I == E? MachineBasicBlock::iterator MachineBasicBlock::getFirstNonPHI() { instr_iterator I = instr_begin(), E = instr_end(); while (I != E && I->isPHI()) ++I; assert(!I->isInsideBundle() && "First non-phi MI cannot be inside a bundle!"); return I; } I am seeing an assert when I run llc. The code is

Please see the attached patch. There was one more line which was calling isInsideBundle without any check. On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > > Is it safe or legal to call isInsideBundle even when I == E? > > > No, neither. >

Hi, If the special handling in the meg2reg pass is to look for lifetime intrinsics, shouldn't it cast to <IntrisicInst> and then use getInstrinsicID to check for lifetime_start and lifetime_end ? The thing that I don't understand is the following piece of code, which finds all the users and cast it to <Instruction> then eraseFromParent(). How can this guarantee that it only

On 10/12/2011 01:32, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> Thanks for your response. Please see my responses below. >> >> >> On 10/12/2011 00:28, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Llopard Ivan<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

Hi, Can anyone tell me how to erase an instruction, (specially a load/store instruction) ? If I use Instr->eraseFromParent(), I get following error. Note the instruction does not have any use. opt: /home/chayan/llvm/llvm-2.6/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:218: llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>& llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator++() [with NodeTy = llvm::Instruction]: Assertion

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > Is it safe or legal to call isInsideBundle even when I == E? No, neither. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121025/cb0bdec9/attachment.html>

I'm writing a pass that looks at the operands of certain non-commutable instructions and swaps a couple of them if certain conditions exist (a register bank conflict in the instruction). If the conflict exists, I build a new instruction which has the 2nd and 3rd operands swapped (using BuildMI). Then I want to get rid of the original instruction. I had done some searching and found that

Thanks Bjorn! But The problem is still there. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Björn Pettersson A < bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> wrote: > It looks quite dangerous to erase the instruction I inside the loop when > iterating over all instructions in the function. > I guess it depends on how the range based iterator is implemented if that > works or not. > > I think

Hi all, Thanks for your feed-backs :-) @Andrew: In fact, I've reused most of the postRA list scheduler code and the resource priority queue. Every time it needs to move forward, either because of a res hazard (HazardRec) or an invalid combination of instructions in the current packet (DFA), it closes the current bundle and advances to the next cycle. The non-interlocked nature of our

I think you need to call "llvm::Function::deleteBody() first" On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 15:49, Reid Kleckner <rnk at mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Gabi <bugspynet at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> I get huge memory leaks using LLVM IRBuilder (trunk version) >> >> Basically I recreate a function over and over again, and pretty sure

LLVM is built in Release mode. The version is 6.0.0. I think that a similar code worked on verison 3.9.0. It is probably a null pointer dereference occurring in eraseFromParent(). I checked and reconfirmed that the instruction had no uses. Perhaps I should rebuild LLVM. Thanks. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io> wrote: > Hmmmm that’s strange. Do you get an

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > > On 07/05/2012 18:15, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>  wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Tuning my TargetAsmPrinter implementation in the back-end side, I

For LLDB I'm writing a dumb module pass that removes all global variables, by running the following code: bool erased = true; while (erased) { erased = false; for (Module::global_iterator gi = llvm_module.global_begin(), ge = llvm_module.global_end(); gi != ge; ++gi) { GlobalVariable *global_var =

Hi Eli, On 07/05/2012 18:15, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Tuning my TargetAsmPrinter implementation in the back-end side, I >> discovered that the address space number is not passed down while >> emitting global variables with constant initializers. The information is