similar to: [LLVMdev] Is shortening a load a bug?

On 09/11/2014 05:33 PM, Quentin Colombet wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> When the IR specifies a 32 bit load can it be changed to a narrower >> load? What if the load is from memory (e.g. a peripheral) that only >> supports 32-bit access? Consider the following IR: ---- target datalayout >> =

On Feb 17, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Вадим Марковцев wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I've added the "S" suffixed versions of ARM and Thumb2 instructions to tablegen. Those are, for example, "movs" or "muls". > Of course, some instructions have already had their twins, such as add/adds, and I leaved them untouched. Adding separate "s" instructions is

Hello everyone, I've added the "S" suffixed versions of ARM and Thumb2 instructions to tablegen. Those are, for example, "movs" or "muls". Of course, some instructions have already had their twins, such as add/adds, and I leaved them untouched. Besides, I propose the codegen optimization based on them, which removes the redundant comparison in patterns like orr

On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Zakk <zakk0610 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I meet this problem when compiling the TREAM benchmark (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/FTP/Code/) with enable-misched > > The small function will be scheduled as good code, but if opt inline this function, the inline part will be scheduled as bad code. A bug for this is welcome. Pretty soon, I’ll

Hi all, I meet this problem when compiling the TREAM benchmark ( http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/FTP/Code/) with enable-misched The small function will be scheduled as good code, but if opt inline this function, the inline part will be scheduled as bad code. so I rewrite a simple code as attached link (foo.c), and compiled with two different methods: *method A:* *$clang -O3 foo.c -static -S

Hi folks, me again, So, I want to implement a simple optimization in a NEON case I've seen these days, most as a matter of exercise, but it also simplifies (just a bit) the code generated. The case is simple: uint32x2_t x, res; res = vceq_u32(x, vcreate_u32(0)); This will generate the following code: ; zero d16 vmov.i32 d16, #0x0 ; load a

Hi everyone, happy new year. This note is to announce that support for PC relative reloc tags for movw/movt is nearing completion (hopefully <48hrs!). This work is is from Jan Voung, David Meyer and myself. Unfortunately, to test this change, we need to patch ARM/AsmParser to address http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8721 Locally, we have hacked up a solution to 8721, but its not ideal

-llvmcommits On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at arm.com> wrote: > Btw, I know this is for ELF printing, but can the same infrastructure > you're using to print the hi/lo be used to print relocation in Asm > output? Or is this a completely separate subject? Hi Renato, If I am understanding you correctly, then the answer is no, because .s output

+llvmdev -llvmcommits On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Sorta. getBinaryCodeForInst() is auto-generated by tablegen, so shouldn't be modified directly. The target can register hooks for instruction operands for any special encoding needs, including registering fixups, using the EncoderMethod string. For an example, have a look at the

Dear community, I faced with code which was generated by llvm, assembly instructions of that code is relying on 8-bytes alignment for structures on the stack. The part of Objective C code is following: -(void)getCharacters:(unichar *)unicode {     NSRange range;     range.location = 0;     range.length = [self length];     printf("%p, %p\n", &range.location, &range.length); And

On 10 January 2011 22:59, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, happy new year. > > This note is to announce that support for PC relative reloc tags for > movw/movt is nearing completion (hopefully <48hrs!). This work is is > from Jan Voung, David Meyer and myself. Hi Jason, Happy new year! That seems a long patch... with many changes... can't

Hi Ashi, > ld: illegal text-relocation to _data_table in table.o from foo in > use_table.o for architecture armv7 It looks like you're using iOS. I'm not familiar with the exact workings of that platform, but I think a similar message would occur in ELF-land. If iOS *is* comparable, your issue is that symbols in dynamically loaded objects can't (usually) be referenced directly

Hi Lang and Arnaud, I've been testing out the PBQP allocator for Thumb-2 and have ran into a problem I'd love to get your input on. The problem is exemplfied in the codegen for the function @bar in the attached IR file: bar: push {r4, lr} sub sp, #12 (1) movw r2, :lower16:.L_MergedGlobals (1) movt r2, :upper16:.L_MergedGlobals ldm.w r2,

This would be best reported to Apple's Radar bug database at http://bugreport.apple.com/ but its whole website has been down for a while. I have a 100% reproducible Thumb-2 code generation error that occurs at all of the levels of optimization available in the Xcode 4.2 for Snow Leopard build settings GUI: -O0, -O1, -O2, -O3 and -Os. However the bad machine code only occurs in Release

> And be warned that the PC doesn't point at the next instruction when you use it like this - I believe you don't need to modify it at all if you swap the pop and the .long. Bernie, is it related to ARM pipeline? I'm interesting in this, is there any other additional information? On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Ashi,

Hi James, I’ve tried to play in the past with the allocation order, which can definitely be tweaked and improved. The metric we use for spill cost being what it is (i.e. not targeted for PBQP, but that’s a different subject), I found it made real sense to use some other heuristics to sort nodes (on top of the spill cost) when there was a tie between them. Of course, that’s a heuristic and it can

Hi, > > I think one idea to improve the situation is to consider the cost vector of adjacent nodes during RN. Let's say you decided to do a RN for node A and want to compute the costs for choosing register %Ri. The current implementation does this by computing min(row/column i of edge A <--> B) but you can do better by adding B's cost vector to the row/column before computing

Hi, I have encountered an issue which seems to be a serious reproducible bug in LLVM-GCC 4.2. It can be reproduced by compiling the following C++ file that uses boost:#include "boost/statechart/event.hpp" using namespace std; class EvActivate : public boost::statechart::event< EvActivate > { public: EvActivate(){} private: }; extern "C" const void*

> (1) Spill cost metrics. I think this one cannot be dissociated from some kind of live range pre-splitting. Cheers, Arnaud From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com] Sent: 03 June 2016 23:15 To: James Molloy Cc: Arnaud De Grandmaison; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sebastian Buchwald; Bernhard Scholz Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] PBQP register allocation and copy propagation Hi James, Arnaud,

On 10 January 2011 23:54, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > If I am understanding you correctly, then the answer is no, because .s > output doesn't care about relocations per se... Hi Jason, That's not entirely true. ;) If you only use the GNU toolchain, that is correct. However, CodeSourcery's GCC changed a bit on how it works for ARM because the ARM toolchain