similar to: [LLVMdev] How should I update LiveIntervals after removing a use of a register?

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:

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

For the little C test program where a constant is stored in memory and also used as a parameter: #include <stdint.h> uint64_t val, *p; extern uint64_t xtr( uint64_t); uint64_t caller() { uint64_t x; p = &val; x = 12345123400L; *p = x; return xtr(x); } clang (3.2, 3.3 and svn) generates the following X86 code (at -O3): caller: movq

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 >

> 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

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

On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > So if this early exit is taken: > > // SSA defs do not have output/anti dependencies. > // The current operand is a def, so we have at least one. > if (llvm::next(MRI.def_begin(Reg)) == MRI.def_end()) > return; > > we do not ever get to this point: > >

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

Hi Vincent, On 25/10/2012 18:14, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > When examining the debug output of regalloc, it seems that joining 32bits reg also joins 128 parent reg. > > If I look at the : > %vreg34<def> = COPY %vreg6:sel_y; R600_Reg32:%vreg34 R600_Reg128:%vreg6 > > instructions ; it gets joined to : > 928B%vreg34<def> = COPY %vreg48:sel_y; > > when vreg6 and

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, 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.

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

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 am having trouble trying to enable post RA scheduler for the Mips backend. This is the bit code of the function I am compiling: (gdb) p MF.Fn->dump() define void @PointToHPoint(%struct.HPointStruct* noalias sret %agg.result, %struct.ObjPointStruct* byval %P) nounwind { entry: %res = alloca %struct.HPointStruct, align 8 %x2 = bitcast %struct.ObjPointStruct* %P to double* %0 = load

Hi, I'm having some trouble wirting an instruction in the X86 backend. I made a new intrinsic and I wrote a custom inserter for my intrinsic in the X86 backend. Everything works fine, except for one instruction that I can't find how to write. I want to add this instruction in one of my machine basic block: mov [rdi], 0 How can I achieve that with the LLVM api? I tried several

Vincent, File a bug report so you can get a fix for it. Ivan On 25/10/2012 23:01, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > 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

Hi! During my backend development I get the error message for some tests: *** Bad machine code: Virtual register def doesn't dominate all uses. *** (C source-code, byte-code disassembly and printed machine code at the end of the email) The first USE of vreg4 in BB#1 has no previous DEF in BB#0 or #1. But why? I can't see how the LLVM byte-code is transformed to the lower machine code.

I've inherited some target code, but there is no SELECT lowering in my target. But somewhere/somehow SELECT is being transformed into a predicated move. I've traced SELECT everywhere in Codegen/SelectionDAG. Any ideas on tracking this down to the point in Codegen lowering/dag-conversion to a predicated series? Again, I do not have a lowering rule in my target for SELECT. If I do a IR

On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Bjorn De Sutter <bjorn.desutter at elis.ugent.be> wrote: > I am working on a backend for a CGRA architecture with advanced predicate support (as on EPIC machines and as first used in the OpenIMPACT compiler). Until last month, the backend was working fine, but since the r161643 commit by stoklund, my backend doesn't work anymore. I think I noticed some