similar to: [LLVMdev] Issue with Machine Verifier and earlyclobber

On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm getting a machine verifier error after introducing the earlyclobber constraint to some instructions where the src and dest regs can't be the same. The offending instruction pattern is this one: > > let canFoldAsLoad = 1, > isReMaterializable = 1, > Constraints =

Hello Jakob, I'm still getting the error, I can give you any other debug info you need. I haven't pasted the regalloc debug info here because it is quite huge, but if you tell me what specific details you need I will include them. Thanks for your help! 2012/7/14 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> > > On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at

Jakob, one more hint, I've placed some asserts around the code you added and noticed that the InlineSpiller::insertReload() function is not being called. 2012/7/14 Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> > Hello Jakob, > > I'm still getting the error, I can give you any other debug info you need. > I haven't pasted the regalloc debug info here because it is quite

Hi, I'd like to define a pseudo-instruction whose expansion will, as a side-effect, overwrite an input register's value: the pseudo-instruction ldw r1:r2, P to load 2 bytes from memory address P is to be expaneded to ld r1, P+ ld r2, P where "ld _, P+" is an instruction that loads a single byte from P, and post-increments P by one. How can I represent this behaviour in

Thanks. I saw the header comments but it wasn’t clear to me what the difference between those concepts is? My slightly vague understanding is IsDef means that the register specified by this operand is set by the machine instruction. So I understand that to mean the MO will override that register? Also things like early clobber, perhaps there is another document that clarifies some of these

On Sun, 28 May 2017, David Chisnall wrote: >> let Constraints = "@earlyclobber $reg" in >> def LDWRdPtr : Pseudo<(outs DREGS:$reg), >> (ins PTRREGS:$ptrreg), >> "ldw\t$reg, $ptrreg", >> [(set i16:$reg, (load i16:$ptrreg))]>, >>

Hi Quentin, > It sounds like you only need the earlyclobber description for the N, N > variant. > In other words, as long as you use different opcodes for widen-op NN and > widen-op WN, you model exactly what you want. > > What am I missing? > we are using different opcodes for widen-op NN and widen-op WN. My understanding is that not setting earlyclobber to the W, N

Hi all, I'm working on a target whose registers have equal-sized subregisters and all of those subregisters can be named (or the other way round: registers can be grouped into super registers). So for instance we've got 16 registers W (as in wide) W0..W15 and 32 registers N (as in narrow) N0..N31. This way, W0 is made by grouping N0 and N1, W1 is N2 and N3, W2 is N4 and N5, ..., W15 is

On Jul 15, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> wrote: > Jakob, one more hint, I've placed some asserts around the code you added and noticed that the InlineSpiller::insertReload() function is not being called. > > 2012/7/14 Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> > Hello Jakob, > > I'm still getting the error, I can give you any other

Hello Jim thanks for the reply, For normal additions with immediates I've done the same as ARM does, basically transforming add(x, imm) nodes to sub(x, -imm) with a pattern in the .td file like this: def : Pat<(add DLDREGS:$src1, imm:$src2), (SUBIWRdK DLDREGS:$src1, (imm16_neg_XFORM imm:$src2))>; Now, the typical pattern concerning additions with global addresses looks

On Jul 15, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Borja Ferrer <borja.ferav at gmail.com> wrote: > I think I'm getting a bit closer to the problem. I've found that the call to InlineSpiller::foldMemoryOperand() inside InlineSpiller::spillAroundUses() is causing the problems. > As a test, I removed that call and with your yesterday's patch I'm not getting any errors at all, the code

I think I'm getting a bit closer to the problem. I've found that the call to InlineSpiller::foldMemoryOperand() inside InlineSpiller::spillAroundUses() is causing the problems. As a test, I removed that call and with your yesterday's patch I'm not getting any errors at all, the code generated is the same one as with the call. This is happening when

Hello, I'm getting the "LLVM ERROR: ran out of registers during register allocation" error message for an out of tree target I'm developing. This is happening for the following piece of C code: struct ss { int a; int b; int c; }; void loop(struct ss *x, struct ss **y, int z) { int i; for (i=0; i<z; ++i) { x->c += y[i]->b; } } The problem relies in

On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Hello Jim thanks for the reply, > > For normal additions with immediates I've done the same as ARM does, basically transforming add(x, imm) nodes to sub(x, -imm) with a pattern in the .td file like this: > def : Pat<(add DLDREGS:$src1, imm:$src2), > (SUBIWRdK DLDREGS:$src1, (imm16_neg_XFORM imm:$src2))>;

Thanks Jim, I've implemented the negation part successfully :) maybe the second part could be a possible feature request so others could use it aswell? 2011/4/27 Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > > > Hello Jim thanks for the reply, > > > > For normal additions with immediates I've done the same as

On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:08 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 15 December 2009 18:01, Jim Grosbach wrote: > >> For a usage example, I've included in the patch the modification to >> use the constraint for the STREX ARM instruction. > > Your example is: > > constraints = "@early $success" > > Why not spell it as: > > constraints =

Hi, How can I specify in a .td file that source and destination should not use the same register? Thanks. - Elena --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If

On Tuesday 15 December 2009 19:52, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Do you have specific examples in mind that would be expressible with > something more complicated that aren't handleable via an early-clobber > constraint? Not offhand, no. I'm mostly concerned about the readability of .td files. > Perhaps spelling it out more fully with "earlyclobber" rather than >

Hi, To fix this bug(http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18881), we need to add more register constraints that for STLXR , Ws and Wt should not be the same register. Because these unpredictable instructions are valid instructions in MC layer, we couldn't just simply treat them as unallocated encoding. I suppose to add some extra rules on register allocator to avoid it allocating register

Hello, I've noticed the following issue while testing some codegen tests, i would like to know if it's a missed optimization or i missed something out here. This is for an out of tree backend im writing. I managed to reduce it to the following C function: void foo(int *a) // int here is 16bits { *a &= 0xFF; } This is the code before regalloc: Live Ins: %R25R24