similar to: [LLVMdev] Properly handling mem-loc arguments when prologue adjusts FP.

Hi, I define a customized node with customized type. The job of this customized node is to move a value from one register class to another class. I find that if there is no use of the destination register, this node will be deleted from SDAG. For some reasons, I want to keep this node. So I attach mayStore attribute to this node and I hope it will not be deleted. However, it does not work like I

MachineRegisterInfo is maintaining a list of live-out registers for the MachineFunction. It contains the return value registers, and is typically created by XXXISelLowering::LowerReturn(). Various passes after instruction selection need to look at this list to determine which physical registers are live in return blocks. Eventually, the register allocators copy these live-out registers onto the

Hi, All, I'm trying to build a customized backend and I need to lower the formal arguments like this: There are several specific registers just for storing formal arguments. And also there are several general purpose registers for computation. If there is an instruction which uses parameters, I should first use a move instruction, which moves the value to general purpose register. For

I missed that the testing case is returning a struct. You are right in VARegSaveSize. For callee: sub sp, sp, #16 push {r11, lr} mov r11, sp sub sp, sp, #8 str r3, [r11, #20] str r2, [r11, #16] str r1, [r11, #12] ldr r1, [r11, #76] The beginning of the input struct @ sp_at_entry - 16 - 8 + 12 = sp_at_entry -12 # of leftover bytes 67-12 = 55 r11+76 is @ sp_at_entry - 24 + 76 = sp_at_entry

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

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130220/a080958f/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201302201044290_44YDXKW4.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14036 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130220/a080958f/attachment.gif>

Hi Rajesh, The callee code looks okay to me > Assembly for check114 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > sub sp, sp, #16 > push {r11, lr} > mov r11, sp > sub sp, sp, #8 > str r3, [r11, #20] > str r2, [r11, #16] > str r1, [r11, #12] > ldr r1,

Here is a patch to improve argument lowering for tail calls. Before this patch all outgoing arguments were move to the stack slot where they would go on a normal function call and from there moved back to the tail call stack slot to prevent overwriting of values. After this patch only arguments that source from callers arguments (formal_arguments) are lowered this way. I moved some code

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130618/5b2a15e3/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201306181656803_BEI0XT4N.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14036 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130618/5b2a15e3/attachment.gif>

> - "since ABI says the stack pointer needs to be 8 byte aligned at function entry point" (taken from Manman's reply) > What will be considered as entry point here? > Is it place of SP Adjustments "sub sp, sp, #16" > (Or) Is it place of first user instruction(end of prologue) "ldr r2, .LCPI0_0" Eight byte stack alignment is a

Hi Arnold, Thanks for the patch. Some questions and commons: 1. Have you test it against the llvm test suite? Does it work if fp elimination optimization is turned off? 2. Please follow llvm coding convention and make sure every line fits in 80 columns. 3. enum NameDecorationStyle { None, StdCall, - FastCall + FastCall, + FastCC // the normal fastcc calling convention }; Why is

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

ola, ive been looking at adding support for an -msave-args option for use on x86_64. the short explanation of it is that it makes x86_64 function prologues store their register arguments on the stack. the purpose of this is to make the arguments trivially accessible for things like stack traces with arguments. as per https://blogs.oracle.com/sherrym/entry/obtaining_function_arguments_on_amd64,

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

Hi Evan, first off thanks to you and Chris for taking time. On 6 Sep 2007, at 00:57, Evan Cheng wrote: > We'd like to see tail call optimization to be similar to the target > independent lowering of ISD::CALL nodes. These are auto-generated > from ???CallingConv.td files. Some target specific details such as > function address register (ECX in your example) should be coded in

Maybe we should also change the stack probing code. I think ___chkstk_ms is used since gcc 4.6. It simplifies the prologue generation code a bit. Regards, Kai On 10.12.2013 02:18, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Mingw switched abis with the release of gcc 4.7 > (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html). The main change is that now > mingw (like msvc) given thiscall calling convention to

Begin forwarded message: > From: Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > Date: 11 September 2007 19:26:39 GMT+02:00 > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86 > Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Hi Arnold, > > Thanks for the patch. Some questions

I am investigating changing BoundsChecking to use address-based rather than size- & offset-based tests. To explain, here is a short code sample cribbed from one of the tests: %mem = tail call i8* @calloc(i64 1, i64 %elements) %memobj = bitcast i8* %mem to i64* %ptr = getelementptr inbounds i64* %memobj, i64 %index %4 = load i64* %ptr, align 8 Currently, the IR for bounds checking

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte

On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the definition of object for @llvm.objectsize, it is identical to gcc's __builtin_object_size(). So it's not wrong; it's just the way it was defined to be. > > Regarding the BasicAA's usage of these functions, I'm unsure. It seems to me that isObjectSmallerThan()