similar to: [LLVMdev] SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG() confusion.

Hello all, I recently foudn myself wanting to view the basic blocks in the selection DAG as pure DAGs - so just as a list of edges, with no other information. I added the below code to the start of the " void SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG()" function. It creates a separate txt file for each basic block and gives a list of edges between nodes. The segment of code is below -

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector > operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from > LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant > simplification.  There are still some issues with this patch, but does > the approach

Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant simplification. There are still some issues with this patch, but does the approach look sane? -Eli -------------- next part -------------- Index: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorOps.cpp

Comments: CheckDAGForTailCallsAndFixThem - 1. for (SelectionDAG::allnodes_iterator BE = DAG.allnodes_begin(), + BI = prior(DAG.allnodes_end()); BI != BE; BI--) { Please use pre-decrement instead of post-decrement. 2. The function is slower than it should be. You are scanning all the nodes in the DAG twice. You should just examine DAG.getRoot() to make determine whether it's a

Here's an example patch of how dbgs() will be used. Essentially I will replace uses of errs() with dbgs(). I believe this is the correct thing to do because: - With #define NDEBUG, dbgs() == errs() - With debugging and -debug-buffer-size=0 (the default), dbgs() just passes output to errs(). - When -debug-buffer-size>0, you want to buffer ALL output so that you don't get some

Hi all, I changed the code that checks whether a tail call is really eligible for optimization so that it performs the check/fix in SelectionDAGISel.cpp:BuildSelectionDAG() as suggest by Evan. Also eliminated an error that caused the remaining failing test cases in the test-suite. The results look very nice (on darwin x86, r42486). The same number (46) of failing test cases on patched

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >> the stack adjustment only fastcc was not one of them. Now that fastcc >> can cause tail call optimization i had to change the convention from >> caller pops arguments to callee pops arguments in order to allow tail >> call optimization in a general way. > > Hmmm. Ok. So this is due to X86CallingConv.td changes? Unfortunately

Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> writes: > Can you put something in the release notes when this happens? I already updated the release notes in r268693, when I added the void Select option in the first place :) > Thanks, > Hans > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Update: All in tree

Although I would like to track the LLVM head revisions regularly, unfortunately I only get the opportunity every couple of months or even every 6 month with a full release. This time I am updating from revision #262824 (8th March) so more than 3 months have elapsed. For the most part I have completed the changes I need to make, but I'm stuck on one change that is more significant than it

I didn't see swapcontext in the list in gcc's special_function_p function... -bw On May 26, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Alistair Lynn wrote: > Hello- > > Shouldn't this catch swapcontext as well? > > Alistair > > On 26 May 2010, at 22:14, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> >> On May 26, 2010, at 2:05 PMPDT, Dan Gohman wrote: >> >>> vfork and

Update: All in tree backends now implement `void Select`. I'll be removing the SelectImpl path on Monday. Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> writes: > TLDR: Heads up for out of tree backends - you're going to need to update > your *DAGToDAGISel::Select method to unconditionally replace nodes > directly instead of returning the desired replacement. > > So I'm

Hello- Shouldn't this catch swapcontext as well? Alistair On 26 May 2010, at 22:14, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On May 26, 2010, at 2:05 PMPDT, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> vfork and getcontext have wildly platform-dependent semantics. >> Handling >> them conservatively is reasonable, even if some platforms don't need >> it. >> >> Dan >

Can you put something in the release notes when this happens? Thanks, Hans On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Update: All in tree backends now implement `void Select`. I'll be > removing the SelectImpl path on Monday. > > Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> writes: >> TLDR: Heads up for out of

TLDR: Heads up for out of tree backends - you're going to need to update your *DAGToDAGISel::Select method to unconditionally replace nodes directly instead of returning the desired replacement. So I'm working on fixing the undefined behaviour I described in llvm.org/PR26808. As part of this, we need to stop looking into deleted SDNodes to check if they were, in fact, deleted. A big place

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout ‘Select*’ functions > returning the ‘SDNode*’ result, maybe I should be calling: > > > > ReplaceNode(N, newValue); > > return; > > or: > > SelectCode(N); > > return; > > >

It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout 'Select*' functions returning the 'SDNode*' result, maybe I should be calling: ReplaceNode(N, newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers'

"Martin J. O'Riordan" <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> writes: > Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. > > This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great > confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can > replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that > use

Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly?

I'm still relatively new to llvm, good to know these errors are from CodeGen. On 03/03/19 10:49 AM, Tim Northover wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 21:00, preejackie via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Could you please explain how you are using this? like commands >> >> When I run this IR in opt, it doesn't throw any errors. > The error

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction