similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction Selection sanity check

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:25 AM, John Kåre Alsaker > <john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> > Yeah, the function attributes section of LangRef is a reasonable place >> > to >>

I started to implement inlining of the stack probe function based on Microsoft's inlined stack probes in https://github.com/Microsoft/llvm/tree/MS. Do we know why the stack pointer cannot be updated in a loop (which results in ideal code)? I noticed that was commented in Microsoft's code. I suspect this is due to debug or unwinding information, since it is allowed on Windows x86-32. I

Hi LLVMers, I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me confused though. I'm currently failing the following assertion: llc: VirtRegMap.cpp:1733: void<unnamed>::LocalSpiller::RewriteMBB(llvm::MachineBasicBlock&,

On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:59 PMPDT, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Yuri wrote: >> On 08/26/2010 11:53, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> Could you get it to print out the instruction when it happens? >>> (just change the line above the error message to print it out to >>> errs()). >>> >>> It basically means that a pseudo

On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Lang Hames wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > I have finally sorted out licensing issues and found some time, so I'm > trying to port my PBQP register allocator to 2.4 in order to Nice! We would definitely welcome your contribution. > > contribute it (if you want it). I've run into a bug that has me > confused though. > > I'm currently

Hi, I had (naively?) expected that the instruction to move immediate to register or memory (such as MOV32mi, MOV32ri, MOV64mi32, MOV64ri, MOV64ri32) would be marked with the flag MCID::MovImm via the X86InstrInfo.td (and hence in the generated X86GenInstrInfo.inc). I do not see that to be the case. Can someone please tell me if my expectation is flawed? Is there a better/different way to

Hello LLVM, I'm playing with a new ISD::OPAQUE instruction to make hoisting first class and eliminate a lot of tweaky flag setting/checking around opaque constants. It's going well for the IR and x86, but I now I need to sort out details for all the other targets. To start, can someone please advise on the AAarch64 equivalent of these X86 patterns? // Opaque values become mov immediate

On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:34 PMPDT, Yuri wrote: > On 08/26/2010 13:17, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>>> Insn before the error: TCRETURNri64 %RAX<kill>, 0, %RDI<kill>, >>>> %RAX<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, %RSP<imp-use>, ... >>> >>> Odd. I thought TCReturn was being lowered. At any rate can you >>> file a bug

Hi, Thx for your help... Here is the IR code: ; ModuleID = 'foo_bar.c' target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [6 x i8] c"MAIN\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) #0 { entry: %retval = alloca i32,

I am trying to categorize the machine instructions based on associated static (i.e., as encoded in .td file) machine description and the corresponding APIs. I would like to perform appropriate actions based on the kind of instruction in a tool that I am working on. For example, I'd like to distinguish between memop instructions involving immediate vs register. While it appears that I would be

On 08/26/2010 13:17, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> Insn before the error: TCRETURNri64 %RAX<kill>, 0, %RDI<kill>, >>> %RAX<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, %RSP<imp-use>, ... >> >> Odd. I thought TCReturn was being lowered. At any rate can you file >> a bug with the .ll file that causes this? > > It should be getting

Hi, I'm having trouble using virtual register in the X86 backend. I implemented a new intrinsic and I use a custom inserter. The goal of the intrinsic is to set the content of the stack to zero at the end of each function. Here is my code: MachineBasicBlock * X86TargetLowering::EmitBURNSTACKWithCustomInserter( MachineInstr *MI, MachineBasicBlock

On Aug 27, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:34 PMPDT, Yuri wrote: > >> On 08/26/2010 13:17, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>>>> Insn before the error: TCRETURNri64 %RAX<kill>, 0, %RDI<kill>, %RAX<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, %RSP<imp-use>, ... >>>> >>>> Odd. I thought

That flag is specifically used by the foldImmediate optimization in the Peephole pass. We don't implement the TLI foldImmediate hook the peephole pass uses on x86 so we have no reason to set the flag on any instructions What are you trying to do? ~Craig On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:45 AM, S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I had

I think even if we did use it, MoveImmediate is intended for instructions that move an immediate into a register rather than into memory. It's supposed to indicate instructions that can be folded with the user of the register by changing the user to an immediate instruction. And it wouldn't be set on an instruction like "addl $0, %eax" or "addl $0, (%ecx)" either since

For the x86-64 target, I tried compiling a simple hello world. I don't understand the live interval information. Here's the machine instructions as dumped by LiveIntervalAnalysis: ********** MACHINEINSTRS ********** file hello.c line 3 b: 0 FNSTCW16m <fi#0>, 1, %NOREG, 0 FNSTCW16m <fi#0> 1 %mreg(0) 0 4 MOV8mi <fi#0>, 1, %NOREG, 1, 2 MOV8mi <fi#0> 1 %mreg(0) 1 2 8

I had been assuming that give a LiveRange a, a.valno->def, if valid, would be the same as a.start. But this is apparently not always the case. For example: Predecessors according to CFG: 0x839d130 (#3) 0x8462780 (#35) 308 %reg1051 = MOV64rr %reg1227<kill> 312 %reg1052 = MOV64rr %reg1228<kill> 316 %reg1053 = MOV64rr %reg1229<kill> 320 %reg1054 = MOV64rr

hi, i know it took a while, but here is a patch that adds a list of source values to machine instructions. i modified the DAGISelEmiter to automatically catch regular loads/stores. custom instructions and loads/stores rewritten by the lowering pass are not automatically captured. during the instruction selection a source value operand is added to the DAG for patterns matching a load/store.

On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:49 AM, David Greene wrote: > I had been assuming that give a LiveRange a, a.valno->def, if > valid, would be the same as a.start. But this is apparently not > always the case. For example: > > Predecessors according to CFG: 0x839d130 (#3) 0x8462780 (#35) > 308 %reg1051 = MOV64rr %reg1227<kill> > 312 %reg1052 = MOV64rr %reg1228<kill>

Evan, thanks for responding so quickly. On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:11, Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:20 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > > 28 %AL<dead> = MOV8rr %reg1024<kill>, %EAX<imp-def> > > MOV8rr %mreg(2)<d> %reg1024 %mreg(17)<d> > > 32 CALL64pcrel32 <ga:printf>, %RDI<kill>, %RAX<imp-def>, %RCX<imp- > >