similar to: [LLVMdev] Code Owner - XCore Backend

Hello all. At XMOS we are working towards updating the upstream XCore backend for newer versions of the chip. XCore is the XMOS processor. The XCore backend was written by Richard Osborne at XMOS. Richard has moved on. The current code owner in CODE_OWNERS.TXT, Robert Lytton, has also moved on. For some years XMOS has developed the compiler in-house, for new versions of the chip, but not

Hi Richard, Thanks for working on this! Your patched solved my initial problem, but introduced another one. Please find attached another BC file that fails on xcore with the linear scan regalloc. This is the error message I get eliminateFrameIndex Frame size too big: -3 0 llc 0x08affd1e 1 libc.so.6 0xb7d35a01 abort + 257 2 llc 0x081a0972

On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Richard Osborne <richard at xmos.com> wrote: > Roman Levenstein wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered >> by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this >> time >> on the XCore target. First I thought that it is again specific to my >>

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > > >>> Evan >>> >> OK, that make sense, I'll take a look at changing this. I've added a >> bug >> for the issue: >> >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3324 >> >> There is currently no Backend: XCore component in bugzilla so

Thanks for reviewing this. Committed in r98255 and r98256. The bug against the ARM backend is 6581: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6581 On 10/03/10 21:45, Chris Lattner wrote: > Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! > > -Chris > > On Mar

Roman Levenstein wrote: > Hi again, > > Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered > by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this time > on the XCore target. First I thought that it is again specific to my > register allocator, but it seems to be trigerred also by LLVM's > linearscan register allocator. > > I don't

Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! -Chris On Mar 9, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner

Roman Levenstein wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for working on this! Your patched solved my initial problem, > but introduced another one. Please find attached another BC file that > fails on xcore with the linear scan regalloc. > > This is the error message I get > eliminateFrameIndex Frame size too big: -3 > 0 llc 0x08affd1e > 1 libc.so.6 0xb7d35a01 abort

On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> Evan > OK, that make sense, I'll take a look at changing this. I've added a > bug > for the issue: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3324 > > There is currently no Backend: XCore component in bugzilla so I've put > it under new-bugs. Could someone add this component for me. Added. You

On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>>> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I've recently

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Richard Osborne <richard at xmos.com> wrote: > > >> Roman Levenstein wrote: >> >>> Hi again, >>> >>> Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered >>> by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this >>> time >>> on

I posted to the list a few weeks ago about the possibility of getting a backend XMOS has developed for a new processor accepted back upstream, see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/16005. I've finally got around to updating the backend to build against the svn trunk and got approval to contribute the code. Shall I just just submit the patch to the llvm-commits list?

I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function so there is no longer a need to emit jump tables at the end of the function. However the emission of jump tables at the end of a function is done inside the AsmPrinter base class and there seems to be no way of disabling this. This also seems to

I'm investigating a bug associated with debug information that manifests itself in the XCore backend (PR11105). I'd like to understand what the expected behavior of eliminateFrameIndex() is when it is called on a dbg_value machine instruction. Currently the XCore target replaces the frame index with the frame register and sets the next operand to the byte offset from the frame

On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>>> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >>>> series jumps. The jump table entries are

I recently noticed that all globals bigger than 16 bytes are being 16 byte aligned by LLVM (assuming there isn't an explicitly requested alignment). I'd really rather avoid this, at least for the XCore backend. I tracked this down to the following code in TargetData.cpp: if (GV->hasInitializer() && GVAlignment == 0) { if (Alignment < 16) { // If the global

On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >>> series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function >>> so there is no longer a need to emit jump

Hi again, Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this time on the XCore target. First I thought that it is again specific to my register allocator, but it seems to be trigerred also by LLVM's linearscan register allocator. I don't know if the XCore target is stable enough in LLVM, or may be I

On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >> series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function >> so there is no longer a need to emit jump tables at the end of the >> function. However the emission of jump tables at

On Sep 6, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Richard Osborne <richard at xmos.com> wrote: > I recently noticed that all globals bigger than 16 bytes are being 16 byte aligned by LLVM (assuming there isn't an explicitly requested alignment). I'd really rather avoid this, at least for the XCore backend. I tracked this down to the following code in TargetData.cpp: > > if