similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] CodeGen Context

On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > This is my proposal for how to solve the problem we have with function attributes that affect code generation changing between functions. (This is mostly a problem for LTO.) > > Please take a look at this proposal, and let me know if you have any questions or comments. > > Cheers!

On Oct 13, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> CGContext :: >> >> A central repository for back-end objects. The back-end objects may change, so >> they should not be "cached" by individual passes. This is analogous to the >>

On Oct 13, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> CGContext :: >>> >>> A central repository for back-end objects. The back-end objects may change,

On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello llvm-dev, > > > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started,

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > We currently have something that looks like: > > IR Transform > (links with) -> TargetTransformInfo > (dynamic call) -> X86TTI > (links with) -> X86Subtarget > > I was thinking of directly replacing X86Subtarget as such: > > IR Transform > (links with) ->

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello llvm-dev, > > > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, > attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext > implementation.

On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Trying to bubble way back to the top, Andy, do you think there is anything else that needs to be done here before it can go in? I feel like most of our discussion centered around future work, and I'd like to unblock the immediate work to support subtarget-specific code generation. Do we have a solution

On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > >> Trying to bubble way back to the top, Andy, do you think there is anything else that needs to be done here before it

On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > We currently have something that looks like: > > IR Transform > (links with) -> TargetTransformInfo > (dynamic call) -> X86TTI > (links with) -> X86Subtarget > > I was thinking of

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > Right. On the flip side, some passes should be able to make hard queries > against target/subtarget that fail if the driver doesn’t initialize them. I > don’t want any way to accidentally run the vectorizer or LSR without > initializing my subtarget info. Also, I want to prevent early passes from >

On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello llvm-dev, > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext implementation. The goal is to allow the newly added subtarget attributes on functions to be made available to codegen so that codegen

Hello llvm-dev, Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext implementation. The goal is to allow the newly added subtarget attributes on functions to be made available to codegen so that codegen can actually switch subtargets within a Module. Comments and questions are invited herewith.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > IMHO the right way to handle target function attributes is to > re-initialize the target machine and TTI for every function (if the > attributes changed). Do you have another solution in mind ? I don't really understand this. TargetMachine and TTI may be quite expensive to initialize. Doing so for

Hi All, I'm dealing with a problem where the spill/restore instructions inserted during scavenging span an adjustment of the SP/FP register. The result is that despite the base register (SP/FP) being changed between the spill and the restore, both store and load use the same immediate offset. I see code in the PEI (replaceFrameIndices) that is supposed to track the SP/FP adjustment:

On Dec 5, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > Right. On the flip side, some passes should be able to make hard queries against target/subtarget that fail if the driver doesn’t initialize them. I don’t want any way to accidentally run the vectorizer or LSR without

On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello llvm-dev, > > Following up on the "CodeGen Context" discussion that was started, attached is patch which implements a pretty minimal skeleton of a CGContext implementation. The goal is to allow the newly added subtarget attributes on functions to be made available to codegen so that codegen

+nlewycky On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch > wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov < > vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch> wrote: > > Do you think moving the pass to lib/Transform/Instrumentation but > > scheduling it during code generation would make sense ? If so, we'll >

CallFrameSetupOpcode is a pseudo opcode like X86::ADJCALLSTACKDOWN64. That means when the code is expected to be called before the pseudo instructions are eliminated. I don't know why it's not the case for you. A quick look at PEI code indicates the pseudo's should not have been removed at the time when replaceFrameIndices are run. Evan On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Krzysztof

Consider this example: --- ex.ll --- declare void @bar() ; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize define void @main() { entry: %hin = alloca [256 x i32], align 4 %xin = alloca [256 x i32], align 4 call void @bar() ret void } ------------- Freshly built llc: llc -O2 -march=x86 < ex.ll -print-before-all # *** IR Dump Before Prologue/Epilogue Insertion & Frame Finalization ***: #

Hi Kostya, >On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch >> wrote: > >> Dear LLVM developers, >> >> We've applied the feedback we received on Phabricator on the SafeStack >> patches, >> > >Did you investigate the possibility of moving the transformation from >codegen to the LLVM level, i.e. the same level