similar to: Is it possible to avoid inserting spill/split code in certain instruction sequence in RA?

Hi, The insertion of DBG_VALUE instructions for spills does not seem to be handling insert locations inside bundles well. If the spill instruction is part of a bundle, the new DBG_VALUE is inserted after it, but does not have the bundling flags set. This essentially means that if we start with a set of bundled instructions: MI1 [BundledSucc=true, BundledPred=false] MI2 [BundledSucc=false,

Hi again, Here is a small patch to fix this issue. Please note that since the problem results in broken bundles, it can result in invalid schedules for any VLIW back-ends using bundling to group instructions. Best regards Saurabh Verma From: Verma, Saurabh Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:14 PM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: DBG_VALUE insertion for spills breaks bundles Hi, The

...Continued from the other email Removing the defs section We can potentially infer quite a lot of the defs section but it requires both a complicated ruleset and that tblgen spends processing time doing the inferencing. That processing time is potentially significant for large combiners and for that reason we need to be careful not to let inferencing become a burden on tblgen. My main worry

> On Nov 29, 2018, at 02:02, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 27.11.18 19:01, Daniel Sanders wrote: >> ...Continued from the other email >> _Removing the defs section_ >> We can potentially infer quite a lot of the defs section but it requires both a complicated ruleset and that tblgen spends processing time doing the inferencing. That

Hi Jakob, > New_MI_1:: Vreg1 = 0 ; Vreg1 and Vreg2 > are 32 bit virt. regs. > New_MI_2:: Vreg2 = COPY C:lo_sub_reg. > New_MI_3:: B= REG_SEQUENCE<Vreg1, hi_sub_reg, Vreg2, lo_sub_reg> ; B > is a > 64 bit virt reg. I used this approach and it worked find until I hit, what I believe is, a bug in the register coalescer. When the register

Hi, This question relates to the undef flag in the context of sub-register def operands. 1) Firstly, the documentation (comments in the source code) says that in a sub-register def operand, the "IsUndef" flag refers to the part of the register that is not written. 2) Further, the documentation about readsReg() states that a sub-register def implicitly reads the other parts of the

Hi Listers, This has a simple answer but it has been eluding me nonetheless. I have been building a PCA plot from scratch with the ability to plot predefined groups in different colors. This has worked fine but when I try to get a polygon drawn around each of the groups it is not recognising my colour file correctly and is only printing the first colour in the file....code is below

Hi Jakob, Thanks for your reply. > > The <undef> flag goes on NewMI_1 because the virtual register B isn't live > before that instruction. > > But you probably shouldn't be doing this yourself. Your NewMI code isn't in > SSA form because B has multiple definitions. Just use a REG_SEQUENCE > instruction, and let the register allocator do the transformation

Dear R-Users, I used the box.tidwell () function of the car Package. When I used the following formula: semi.sub.in.mi1.boxtidwell_h<-box.tidwell(RENT_LG ~ I(age+1)+I(age2+1)+X06A + I(X08B+1) + I(X22+1) + I(X24+1) + X31A, ~B_YEAR + C_X01 + C_X14 + C_X19 + C_X29A +C_X21 + C_X23 + D_X12 + D_X17 + D_X18 + D_X25 + D_X27 + D_X30 + D_X32 + D_X35, data = semi.sub.in.mi1) everything is

Hi All, I've more or less finished updating the examples to the DAG style we were talking about. Hopefully I haven't forgotten anything, there was a lot to keep track of :-). Overall, I think there's a couple places where things get a a little awkward (mainly debug info) but things generally look good to me. A Simple Example def : GICombineRule<(defs reg:$D, reg:$S),

On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:01 PM, "Pranav Bhandarkar" <pranavb at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Jakob, > >> New_MI_1:: Vreg1 = 0 ; Vreg1 and Vreg2 >> are 32 bit virt. regs. >> New_MI_2:: Vreg2 = COPY C:lo_sub_reg. >> New_MI_3:: B= REG_SEQUENCE<Vreg1, hi_sub_reg, Vreg2, lo_sub_reg> ; B >> is a >> 64 bit

Hi all, I have been working through the examples in one of the vignettes associated with the 'mlogit' package, 'Kenneth Train's exercises using the mlogit package for R.' In spite of using the code unchanged, as well as the data used in the examples, I have been unable to run a Wald test to test two models. Specifically, I have run the following command, where mc and mi2 are

On Jul 4, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Pranav Bhandarkar <pranavb at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > This question relates to the undef flag in the context of sub-register def > operands. > > 1) Firstly, the documentation (comments in the source code) says that in a > sub-register def operand, the "IsUndef" flag refers to the part of the > register that is not

> On Nov 10, 2018, at 03:28, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you for the detailed reply! There's a lot to digest :) Let me try to address most of it. > > > [snip] >>> I also think you should have 'ins' and 'outs' separately; after all, a predicate may have to do a combined check on two matched registers / operands,

My CLEC just called and asked if we will support the "MI2" protocol on our proposed T1 circuit. I think this is for CallerID name. Will the T100P support this? Thanks, Mike

MI2 starts ok but when I click new game it just kinda freezes, though the music keeps playing. Any ideas? last line is: wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x7f0c3400 at address 0x68615040 (thread 0034), starting debugger... Could you post your .wine/user.reg ? the DllOverrides section?

Saludo cordial para cada uno. Les pido ayuda para generar números aleatorios de una mixtura k-puntos. Sabemos que la función de distribución F es una mixtura k-puntos si es de la forma F(x) = p_1 F_1(x) + p_2 F_2(x) + … + p_k F_k(x), donde F_j es una función de distribución de probabilidad, p_j > 0 y suma(p_j) = 1, para j = 1, 2, …, k. En mi caso particular F es la suavización de la

Hi Dominique, From your description it is not really clear what you are trying to do here. It may be the case that the goal you are trying to accomplish can be better reached using a different approach. In general, optimizations don't try to assign physical registers, that's done by the register allocation passes. There are some cases when target-specific passes use physical

Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for your response. I was trying to map function input parameters to machine specific registers. My solution I found is based to the RegInfo.setSimpleHint() API. Here is the body of the parameters loop of TargetLowering::LowerFormalArguments VReg = RegInfo.createVirtualRegister(RC); RegInfo.setSimpleHint(VReg,CLP::FA_ROFF1+i);

Spiller::Spill( LiveInterval *li, SmallVectorImpl<LiveInterval*> &newIntervals, const SmallVectorImpl<LiveInterval*> &spillIs ); has two reference vectors which contain a small list of Live Intervals. What is the register allocator's job to do with these intervals other than analysis. What more needed other than to know