similar to: What is register scavenging?

There is also the LivePhysReg facility that I would recomment if you just want to query for a free register and do not need the full feature set of the RegisterScavenger. - Matthias > On Jan 19, 2017, at 5:50 AM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I believe what you're after is the register scavenger. > It's in:

I'm not sure exactly what you're after. I was under the impression that you want to know which register is live at a specific point (an instruction). If that's the case, how do one of the two suggested solutions not suffice? If a register is live-in to a block and not killed before your instruction or it has a def and no kill within the block, it is live. Otherwise it is dead and

I read the 4.9 “Features added" release notes about newly available DNS scavenging features, and the problem with domains that were set up in earlier versions of samba AD. "It is now possible to enable scavenging of DNS Zones to remove DNS records that were dynamically created and have not been touched in some time.” “This support should however only be enabled on new zones or new

No, I wasn't having a management lobotomy moment. If the target's registers have no subregisters, SubUsed is false and the assert gets tripped. Ok, back to the original question: What was the original intent in this code (lines 186-193 in lib/CodeGen/RegisterScavenging.cpp)? -scooter On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Scott Michel <scooter.phd at gmail.com> wrote: > Ugh.

There's an assert at line 192, lib/CodeGen/RegisterScavenging.cpp that appears to get tripped on targets that don't have subregisters defined: bool SubUsed = false; for (const unsigned *SubRegs = TRI->getSubRegisters(Reg); unsigned SubReg = *SubRegs; ++SubRegs) if (isUsed(SubReg)) { SubUsed = true; break; }

Hi All, Given a machine instruction, is it possible to tell which register(s) is still not in use? For example, given one instruction A, if the one follows it (say B) defines register rax, then I can tell rax should spare at instruction A. The purpose is to use the spare register to replace registers used by A, for instrumentation purpose. Regards, Hu Hong -------------- next part

I ran into another issue with register scavenger. In my case, I don't need a place on the stack for an emergency spill slot. I have these free mips32 registers, that are not in general very useful for other things, for the emergency spill slot. I can move to and from mips16 (subset of mips32) registers and mips32 registers. I also have a situation where I need two free registers so then

Ugh. Management lobotomy kicked in. Need to RTFC better. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Scott Michel <scooter.phd at gmail.com> wrote: > There's an assert at line 192, lib/CodeGen/RegisterScavenging.cpp that > appears to get tripped on targets that don't have subregisters defined: > > bool SubUsed = false; > for (const unsigned *SubRegs =

You mean when I "explicity" use it by calling methods of register scavenger? Right now I'm just allocating virtual registers that will be resolved by the use of register scavenger and I'm also providing an override of the virtual method saveScavengerRegister. In Mips16, I have an extra mips 32 register (not usually very useful since it can only be used in a move instruction)

Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Tikanga) Samba 3.0.33-3.15.el5_4.1 I have run into an issue where the DNS records added by a net ads join seem to be being scavenged. From what I understand, Windows servers/workstations check in (update their host record) on the AD DNS server on a regular basis. So the question is, how can I have samba/winbind do the same? I could just setup a cron

I ran into a case in Mips16 where I need two registers. The problem arises from the fact that SP is not a mips16 register. You can implicitly use it in load/store and, move it to/from a mips16 register and add small immediate values to it but that's it. It's not in general a problem for me because there are a bunch of mips32 registers that are hard to use in mips16 so at this time, I

So what I realized is that you can't use the simple scavenger trick where you create the virtual register and use the more advanced features. This is because you can't call forward() in any form if there are virtual registers being used by any of the instructions in the basic block. This will cause forward to fail. Maybe this is a bug in forward() On 02/05/2013 02:51 PM, Reed Kotler

Does not seem that anyone is using the more advanced features of RegScavenger On 02/05/2013 01:09 PM, reed kotler wrote: > I ran into a case in Mips16 where I need two registers. > > The problem arises from the fact that SP is not a mips16 register. > You can implicitly use it in load/store and, move it to/from a mips16 > register and add small immediate values to it but

No. forward() is working correctly. All virtual register references must be resolved before calling it. -Jim On Feb 5, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > So what I realized is that you can't use the simple scavenger trick where you create the virtual register and use the more advanced features. > > This is because you can't call forward() in any

Hello llvm'ers, We are using the llvm compiler tools (llvm-link, llc, etc) to generate code for ARM for the Android NDK. We're on a pretty tight deadline and have a host of issues that we could use some help overcoming. We're interested in bringing on a contractor experienced in llvm to help us. Broadly, llc is giving various assertion failures while generating the native code

Scott Michel skrev: > No, I wasn't having a management lobotomy moment. If the target's registers have > no subregisters, SubUsed is false and the assert gets tripped. > > Ok, back to the original question: What was the original intent in this code > (lines 186-193 in lib/CodeGen/RegisterScavenging.cpp)? You beat me to it :). A simple bypass (patch attached) does at

Kalle: Your patch is similar to what I'd coded (and am testing, which means a couple of hours before I consider committing). Other than cosmetic changes and changing 'NULL' to '0' (it's an integer list, after all). This patch now causes new problems in the CellSPU backend (more stqd's and lqd's), so I have to investigate those before committing the patch.

On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:39 PM, 任坤 wrote: > But I want do some optimization after register alloction by adjusting > register using. I scan MachineBasicBlock to analyze operand's IsKill, IsDead , IsDef attribute to get a physical register's liverange. But I get a strange case at MBB.jpg. You can also look at RegisterScavenging.cpp and MachineVerifier.cpp. They are doing the same

Is it possible to get a virtual register and then use that to create a real register? I've seen it done in unittests/CodeGen/MachineInstrTest.cpp like this: unsigned VirtualDef1 = -42; VD1VU->addOperand(*MF, MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtualDef1, /*isDef*/ true)); But when I do that in my code I get an assertion so I wasn't sure if it's legal or not. Thanks.

On Nov 28, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Isaac Asay wrote: > > I am continuing to look over the code in the ARMLoadStoreOptimizer.cpp file, but I was wondering if you had a specific suggestion or a documentation resource that I could use to perform this instruction rearrangement in an LLVM idiomatic way. Using my algorithm, I already know where I can move MachineInstrs without effecting program