similar to: ARM: Predicated returns considered analyzable?

Doh. I missed the list in my first reply... Here's the replay of the conversation: ----- Renato: On 10 August 2015 at 14:05, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > --> %SP<def,tied1> = t2LDMIA_RET %SP<tied0>, pred:8, pred:%CPSR, > %R7<def>, %PC<def>, %SP<imp-use,undef>, %R7<imp-use,undef>, >

Since the getelementptrs were implicitly generated by the CreateStore/Load I'm not sure how to get access to them. So I hacked the assignment to be done thrice: once using a manual decomposition into two GEPs and stores, once using the "big" CreateStore, once via the setGlobal function, printing addresses and memory contents at each point to the degree that I have access to them.

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

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Nikodemus Siivola < nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > Uh. Turns out that if I hide the pointer to @foo from LLVM by passing it > through an opaque identity function ... then everything works fine. > > Is this a bug in LLVM or is there some magic involving globals I'm > misunderstanding? > This looks like a bug in the handling of

That's useful to know that the static compilation code path works. Furthermore, as expected from that: 52: c7 05 04 00 00 00 d5 00 00 00 movl $213, 4 00000054: IMAGE_REL_I386_DIR32 _foo It looks like the offset `4` of the second field of your struct is correct in the object file, so this does seem to be a problem in the JIT-specific linking/loading.

My code was hinky, but only in the sense that I was accidentally duplicating the definition variable in the module where the function was. With only the declaration in the second module loading the bitcode reproduces the issue. Managed an lli reproduction: $ cat jit-0.ll target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32" target triple =

The code has changed a lot over the years. Looks like at some point of time the assumption was broken. calculateCallsInformation() may have eliminated the pseudo set up instructions already. // If call frames are not being included as part of the stack frame, and

Thanks, I'll look into that. Still, the case where the function does not call anything remains---in such a situation there are no ADJCALLSTACK pseudos, so regardless of what that function you pointed at does, there won't be any target-independent information about the SP adjustment by the time the frame index elimination runs. Would it make sense to have ADJCALLSTACK pseudos every

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 ***: #

Emitting calls to these functions (written in an .ll file linked in) works fine, and does the right thing. %Any = type { i8*, i32 } define dllexport void @setGlobal(%Any* %ptr, %Any %value) { store %Any %value, %Any* %ptr ret void } define dllexport %Any @getGlobal(%Any* %ptr) { %val = load %Any, %Any* %ptr ret %Any %val } Trying to replace the setGlobal call with what should be

I found myself wanting a "scheduling barrier" in LLVM. In my specific circumstances I only want it to mean that TargetInstrInfoImpl::isSchedulingBoundary() would return true. I added SchedulingBarrier to MCID in MCInstrDesc.h and pushed it through TD attributes down to isSchedulingBoundary(). Is this something of general interest, or is there another mechanism for implementing

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 >>

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

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 May 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: >> Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> %tx = select %mask, %x, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >>> %ty = select %mask, %y, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >>> %sum = fadd %tx, %ty >>> %newvalue

> -----Original Message----- > From: mbraun at apple.com [mailto:mbraun at apple.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 3:15 PM > To: Alex Bradbury > Cc: llvm-dev; Adrian Prantl; Eric Christopher; Robinson, Paul > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Setting MachineInstr flags through > storeRegToStackSlot > > Can someone familiar with debug info comment on whether it matters

## Problem description One of the responsibilities of a target's implementation of TargetFrameLowering::emitPrologue is to set the frame pointer (if needed). Typically, the frame pointer will be stored to the stack just like the other callee-saved registers, and emitPrologue must insert the instruction to change its value after it was stored to the stack. Mips does this by looking at the

Hi all, I noticed that the x86 backend tends to emit unnecessary vector insert instructions immediately after sse scalar fp instructions like addss/mulss. For example: ///////////////////////////////// __m128 foo(__m128 A, __m128 B) { _mm_add_ss(A, B); } ///////////////////////////////// produces the sequence: addss %xmm0, %xmm1 movss %xmm1, %xmm0 which could be easily optimized into

Hi, I don't know if my llvm ir code is faulty, or if I spot a bug in the RegisterCoalescing Pass, so I'm posting my issue on the ML. Shader and print-before-all dump are given below. The interessing part is the vreg6/vreg48 reduction : before RegCoalescing, the machine code is : // BEFORE LOOP ... Some COPYs.... 400B%vreg47<def> = COPY %vreg2<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg47,%vreg2

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