similar to: [LLVMdev] Is it possible to tie two defs together?

On May 9, 2012, at 4:27 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello Jonas, > >> I wonder, what would be the best solution for instructions that require >> operands in a particular register, and even gives the result in a particular >> register? > You need to custom select such instruction. See e.g. div / idiv on x86 > as an example. That's often easiest, yes;

Jim, > The an instruction that uses R0 and R1 as fixed input registers and R2 for output could define itself using those register classs: > def myInst : baseclass<…, (outs GPRr2:$dst), (ins GPRr0:$src1, GPRr1:$src2), …> > Use those reg classes in pattern to match also, and things should just work. The register allocator can take care of any reg-to-reg copies that are required. As

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.

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 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 >

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

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 Quentin, yes, this happens quite late. With the Option --debug-pass=Structure it's in or after "Assembly Printer". I do have a very simple DAGToDAGISel::Select() method: SDNode *MyTargetDAGToDAGISel::Select(SDNode *N) { SDLoc dl(N); // default implementation if (N -> isMachineOpcode()) { N -> setNodeId(-1); return NULL; // Already selected. } SDNode

Hi Quentin, I added some debug output (N->dump()) in ::Select(SDNode*N) and compared it to the dot/Graphviz output (-view-legalize-types-dags; the last one with correct code). I found out, that some SDNodes are not passed to the ::Select(SDNode*N), approximately 11 nodes are missing. The first add-node (v1+v2) is missing. Is it normal that not all nodes are passes to ::Select()? Thanks,

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'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

Hi Lang, > Hmm. Let me make sure I'm reading this right. The constraints are that: > a) All four operands have distinct registers. > b) The first two are in a consecutive pair (second > first) > c) The second two are in a consecutive pair (fourth > third) Constraints b & c are OK, but a is too strict : "mpra %R0, %R1, %R0, %R1" is OK. But I though, may be

Hello devlopers, I request your guidance on how to lower the metadata attached with an instruction. Following is given the IR dump before Module verifier pass, and there is a string "Tile3" attached as metadata with instruction "%x = alloca i32, align 4, !Tile3 !1". My target is to transmit/propagate the string down to post RA-Scheduling pass. Is it possible? If yes, how

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

Hi Quentin, Am 01.11.2014 um 00:39 schrieb Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>: > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Boris Boesler <baembel at gmx.de> wrote: > >> Hi Quentin, >> >> I added some debug output (N->dump()) in ::Select(SDNode*N) and compared it to the dot/Graphviz output (-view-legalize-types-dags; the last one with correct code). I

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. For an example we can look no further than the actual test which has been disabled after the fix

Hi, I have a question related to pre-RA scheduling and spill of registers. I'm writing a backend for two operands instructions set, so FPU operations result have implicit destination. For example, the result of FMUL_A_oo is implicitly the register FA_ROUTMUL. I have defined FPUaROUTMULRegisterClass containing only FA_ROUTMUL. During the instruction lowering, in order to avoid frequent spill

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.

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 am experimenting with creating instructions that write into virtual registers that use the ARM GPRPair register class in Pre-RA phase. During register allocation, I hit an assertion because the code is not in SSA form: lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp:271: llvm::MachineInstr* llvm::MachineRegisterInfo::getVRegDef(unsigned int) const: Assertion `(I.atEnd() || llvm::next(I) ==