similar to: [LLVMdev] Subregister liveness tracking

What I didn't mention in r192119 is that mthi/lo clobbers the other sub-register only if the contents of hi and lo are produced by mult or other arithmetic instructions (div, madd, etc.) It doesn't have this side-effect if it is produced by another mthi/lo. So I don't think making mthi/lo clobber the other half would work. For example, this is an illegal sequence of instructions,

On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > What I didn't mention in r192119 is that mthi/lo clobbers the other sub-register only if the contents of hi and lo are produced by mult or other arithmetic instructions (div, madd, etc.) It doesn't have this side-effect if it is produced by another mthi/lo. So I don't think making mthi/lo clobber the

I've been working on patches to improve subregister liveness tracking on llvm and I wanted to inform the llvm community about the overal design/motivation for them. I will send the patches to llvm-commits later today. Greetings Matthias Braun Subregisters in llvm ==================== Some targets can access registers in different ways resulting in wider or narrower accesses. For

> I expected that this optimization would be picked > up in a cse, gvn, machine-cse or even peepholing pass. > > Comments? At the LLVM IR level this is represented as define i64 @caller() #0 { entry: store i64* @val, i64** @p, align 8, !tbaa !0 store i64 12345123400, i64* @val, align 8, !tbaa !3 %call = tail call i64 @xtr(i64 12345123400) #2 ret i64 %call } Which is

On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> I expected that this optimization would be picked >> up in a cse, gvn, machine-cse or even peepholing pass. >> >> Comments? > > > At the LLVM IR level this is represented as > > define i64 @caller() #0 { > entry: > store i64* @val, i64** @p, align 8, !tbaa

Hi, I've been looking at the Machine Scheduler on Power PC. I am looking only at the pre-RA machine scheduler and I am running it in the default bi-directional mode (so, both top down and bottom up queues are considered). I've come across an example where the scheduler picks a poor ordering for the instructions which results in very high register pressure which results in spills.

On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Andy, > > You are probably right here – look at this – before phi elimination this code looks much more sane: > > # *** IR Dump After Live Variable Analysis ***: > # Machine code for function push: SSA > Function Live Outs: %R0 > > BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry >

Hi, We recently found a testcase showing that simplifications in instcombine sometimes change the instruction without reducing the instruction cost, but causing problems in TwoAddressInstruction pass. And it looks like the problem is generic and other simplification may have the same issue. I want to get some ideas about what is the best way to fix such kind of problem. The testcase:

Hi, I am working on a simple copy propagation pass for the R600 backend that propagates immediates rather than registers. For example, I want to transform: ... %vreg1 = V_MOV_B32 1 %vreg2 = V_ADD_I32 %vreg1, %vreg0 ... into: %vreg1 = V_MOV_B32 1 ; <- Only delete this if it is dead %vreg2 = V_ADD_I32 1, %vreg0 For best results, I am trying to run this pass after the TwoAddressInstruction

Ok, after a long detour I am back to where I have started. I think there is a problem at dep DAG construction. Let me try to convince you. Here is the C code we are dealing with: push () { struct xx_stack *stack, *top; for (stack = xx_stack; stack; stack = stack->next) top = stack; yy_instr = top->first; } If the loop never iterates, "top" will have

Sergei, Absolutely right, the copy/ldriw should not be reordered. I was attempting to explain that I consider it a phi-elimination bug, not a DAG builder bug. Liveness will also have problems with this code in the long run. To avoid confusion, I filed PR13112: Phi elimination generates uninitialized vreg uses, and disabled the SSA check until its fixes in r158461. However, your C code is also

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > So to write this in a more condensed form, you have: > > %v0 = ... > %v1 = and %v0, 255 > %v2 = and %v1, 31 > use %v1 > use %v2 > > and transform this to > %v0 = ... > %v1 = and %v0, 255 > %v2 = and %v0, 31 > ... > > This is a classical problem with instruction

This code lives in DAGCombiner.cpp: ------------- // Turn 'store float 1.0, Ptr' -> 'store int 0x12345678, Ptr' if (ConstantFPSDNode *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFPSDNode>(Value)) { // NOTE: If the original store is volatile, this transform must not increase // the number of stores. For example, on x86-32 an f64 can be stored in one // processor operation but

Hello, some months ago i wrote to the mailing list asking some questions about register pairing, i've been experimenting several things with the help i got back then. Some background first: this issue is for a backend for an 8bit microcontroller with only 8bit regs, however it has a few 16bit instructions that only work with fixed register pairs, so it doesnt allow all combinations of regs.

Andy, You are probably right here - look at this - before phi elimination this code looks much more sane: # *** IR Dump After Live Variable Analysis ***: # Machine code for function push: SSA Function Live Outs: %R0 BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry %vreg5<def> = IMPLICIT_DEF; IntRegs:%vreg5 %vreg4<def> = TFRI_V4 <ga:@xx_stack>; IntRegs:%vreg4

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

Thanks for spelling it out, now I understand. On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Galanov, Sergey wrote: > Well, the point is CMOV_GR* are marked clobbering EFLAGS conservatively just in case they turn out to be lowered into a sequence containing XOR %reg,%reg which indeed clobbers EFLAGS. This means there might not be any instruction which actually uses this EFLAGS value. This actually looks like a

Does anyone know exactly what ComposerIndices in Target.td is all about? I see just one place where it's used in X86 but it's not clear from the comments in Target.td and it's one usage, exactly what this feature is about. Tia. Reed

Dear all, I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. I've described in tablegen this instruction as follow: def DECJNZ : Instruction { let Namespace = "MyTarget"; let

Thank for your help. You're right, merging vreg32 and vreg48 is perfectly fine, sorry I missed that. I "brute force" debuged by adding MachineFunction dump after each join, I think I found the issue : it's when vreg32 and vreg10 are merged. vreg10 only appears in BB#3, and the join only occurs in BB#3 apparently even if vreg32 lives in the 4 machine blocks After joining, there