similar to: [LLVMdev] instr_iterator

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>

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. >

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

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

Hi all, I have faced a little bit of a strange transformation from the TailDuplicatePass In CodeGen. When the pass clones the contents of TailBB into PredBB, the bundled instructions in TailBB are not bundled in PredBB. I think the reason why it is not bundled is that the 'DuplicateInstruction' function does not set up the flag of the first instruction of the bundle in PredBB when it

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 03:51:10PM -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > >> Tom, > >> > >> I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls > >> ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create

On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: >> Tom, >> >> I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls >> ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is >> the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Sergei Larin wrote: > Tom, > > I do not have your call stack, but packetizer calls > ScheduleDAGInstrs::buildSchedGraph to create dependency model. If this is > the first time you use the new MI sched infrastructure (like your target has > not implemented misched yet) there might be some work needed to implement > couple target

Hi, I've raised an assertion when I tried to remove an instruction within a bundle by calling eraseFromParent(). It seems that in order to erase the MI, a bundle iterator is created but it's forbidden if the MI is not the bundle's header. The attached patch fix it. As a test case, call eraseFromParent() on a machine instruction with its isInsideBundle flag activated. Ivan

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 08:06:42PM -0500, Jay Cornwall wrote: > Hi, > > This patch adds R600/SI disassembly text to compiled object files, when > a code dump is requested, to assist debugging in Mesa clients. > > Here's an example of the output in a Mesa client with a corresponding > patch and RADEON_DUMP_SHADERS set: > > Shader Disassembly: > >

Hi, This patch adds R600/SI disassembly text to compiled object files, when a code dump is requested, to assist debugging in Mesa clients. Here's an example of the output in a Mesa client with a corresponding patch and RADEON_DUMP_SHADERS set: Shader Disassembly: S_WQM_B64 EXEC, EXEC ; BEFE0A7E S_MOV_B32 M0, SGPR6 ; BEFC0306

I just realised I forgot to reply to this. Thanks for advise, it's good to know. Thanks, Dan Liew. On 30 August 2013 16:25, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Daniel Liew <daniel.liew at imperial.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to write a small piece of code that inlines all calls to a >> particular

Hi, I'm trying to write a small piece of code that inlines all calls to a particular function. The codes is as follows Function* klee_check_divF = module->getFunction("klee_div_zero_check"); assert(klee_check_divF != 0 && "Failed to find klee_div_zero_check function"); // Hack inline checks for (Module::iterator f = module->begin(), fe =

Hi again, 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>: > > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Roman Levenstein <romix.llvm at googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> 2009/1/13 Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com>: >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >>> >>>> bb368: 0x8fdad00, LLVM BB @0x8fc2c98, ID#1:

Hi, We're having an issue with TailDuplication in our out-of-tree target and it's this PHI-node that seems to be the cause of the trouble: %vreg2<def> = PHI %vreg0, <BB#2>, %vreg1, <BB#3>; rN:%vreg2 aNlh_0_7:%vreg0 aNlh_rN:%vreg1 Note that the defined %vreg2 has register class "rN" while the read %vreg0 has register class "aNlh_0_7".

Jakob, I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? My problem with them happens when I try to call finalizeBundle() on an existing bundle to which I have added a new instruction. The goal - a new bundle header with liveness abbreviation, but

Jakob, > The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from > the old style a little too quickly. I wanted to avoid bugs from a > global s/setIsInsideBundle/bundleWithPred/g search and replace. This is a good intent. Maybe a bit temporal but sound nevertheless. > finalizeBundle is calling 'MIBundleBuilder Bundle(MBB, FirstMI, > LastMI)' which ought to

On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Sergei Larin" <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in > bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger > of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from the old style a

like history, the future is decided by the people who write it... > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/10/the-future-of-markdown.html by the way, if you want a form of light-markup which is still flexible enough to be molded, but will be _totally_ free of ambiguities and "edge-cases", and governed by a well-written specification and thorough documentation, along with an

Hello I'm new to the list so I'm sorry if this question has been asked before but does anyone know where I can stream for free on an ice cast server? I would like to use AAC if possible but I can use .OGG if need be as the soft where I would like to use doesn't support MP3. I have soft where that will but I like the quality and size of AAC much better. I'm on a mac so any help