similar to: Is it a good idea to mark class as deprecated?

Hi, Matthias. >From the class hierarchy, ScheduleDAGMILive is also a ScheduleDAGMI. I am wondering if there will be any problem if we use subclass of ScheduleDAGMILive as post-RA scheduler? The best case is ScheduleDAGMILive just waste time on book-keeping register pressure, but I am not sure if we can still do those book-keeping after RA. Talk about post-RA scheduler, I see there is another

Also you might need to check use PostRASchedulerList or PostMachineScheduler, PostRASchedulerList is considered deprecated as mentioned in [1]. [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112348.html HTH, chenwj 2017-06-10 4:03 GMT+08:00 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw>: > Not saying I am totally understand how thing works, but I think you're > misleading >

Hello, Is it possible to activate the MIPS code emitter during Post-RA scheduler. I tried including both MipsCodeEmitter.cpp and JITCodeEmitter.h to PostRASchedulerList.cpp, but when I rebuild the compiler I get an error that says “/lib/Target/Mips/MCTargetDesc/MipsMCTargetDesc.h fatal error: MipsGenRegisterInfo.inc file not found”. I’m assuming that the MipsGenRegisterInfo.inc is not yet

Hello. I am new to the schedulers implemented in the back end of LLVM. I am trying to handle data hazards in my simple processor, with instructions that execute in 1 cycle. I have tried the standard post-RA scheduler, implemented in lib/CodeGen/PostRASchedulerList.cpp, (with a ScoreboardHazardRecognizer), but I have some issues with some consecutive instructions that are

On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:00 AM, Gergö Barany wrote: > I independently arrived at the same crazy idea :-) and I'm wondering if > anybody ever went and actually implemented a rescheduling allocator in LLVM. > I've done some poking around the web, the mailing list archives and the LLVM > source code, but I haven't found anything suggesting that this has been > done. If anyone

What are you actually trying to do? The code emitters have nothing to do with the post-RA scheduler. -Jim On May 30, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Jafar J <pluck90 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Is it possible to activate the MIPS code emitter during Post-RA scheduler. I tried including both MipsCodeEmitter.cpp and JITCodeEmitter.h to PostRASchedulerList.cpp, but when I rebuild

I need to represent each instruction with its (32-bit) binary encoding, and I reached to a conclusion that I could get the encoding through the MipsCodeEmitter. What I’m trying to do exactly is write a scheduler which tries to minimize the switching activity between the scheduled instructions in each basic block. One way to do that is by representing each instruction with its complete binary

Hello. Hal, the problem I have is that it doesn't advance at the next available instruction - it always gets the same store. This might be because I did not specify in a file like [Target]Schedule.td the functional units, processor and instruction itineraries. Regarding the Stalls argument to my method [Target]DispatchGroupSBHazardRecognizer::getHazardType() I always get the

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 8:29 AM Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Varun, > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:17 AM Varun Gandhi via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > * Stability Guarantees: The C++ API is does not guarantee any stability. > Changes may be made without any notice about deprecation and alternate APIs

Thanks, that helps. The code emitter is definitely not the way you want to go about solving this problem, though. Are the instruction opcode (MachineInstr::getOpcode()) and the operand values not sufficient? All the information present in the encoding should be inferable from those, as that’s where the encoding comes from. -Jim On May 30, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Jafar J <pluck90 at

Hello. I am progressing a bit with difficulty with the post RA scheduler (PostRASchedulerList.cpp with ScoreboardHazardRecognizer) - the problem I have is that it doesn't advance at the next available instruction when the overridden ScoreboardHazardRecognizer::getHazardType() method returns NoopHazard and it gets stuck at the same instruction (store in my runs). Just to make sure:

Yes your absolutely right, the Opcode and the Operands in each machine instruction are sufficient to generate the final binary representation of the MachineInstruction but not exactly. If you take a look at the format of each MIPS instruction, you’ll see that there are some fixed bits for each instruction which are not available inside the machine instruction object –From what I saw so far-.

On Jul 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on a custom top-down post RA scheduler which builds bundles > at the same time for our VLIW processor. I've borrowed most of the > implementation from the resource priority queue implemented for the > existent VLIW scheduler but applied to the context of MI

I am running into a problem when I turn on post-RA scheduler with mode "ANTIDEP_CRITICAL" for mips. I'd appreciate if someone could explain what is going wrong here. This is the basic block before post RA scheduling (at PostRASchedulerList.cpp:322): *(gdb) #3 0x0000000000ed3d26 in runOnMachineFunction (this=0x20aa470, Fn=...) at lib/CodeGen/PostRASchedulerList.cpp:322 322

Hi Jafar, That’s not quite what I meant. Why do you need to know the exact encoding at all? The instruction opcode+operands should have all the semantic information you need without ever looking at the actual encoding. -Jim On May 30, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Jafar J <pluck90 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Yes your absolutely right, the Opcode and the Operands in each machine instruction are

Hi Jim, The idea of reducing the switching activity between the instructions works by reducing the hamming distance between tow consecutive binary strings across the basic block, or reducing the number of the different bits between two consecutive instructions. This is why I need the exact complete encoding in plain 0’s and 1’s, to be as precise as possible during the scheduling process. I did

Hi all, Thanks for your feed-backs :-) @Andrew: In fact, I've reused most of the postRA list scheduler code and the resource priority queue. Every time it needs to move forward, either because of a res hazard (HazardRec) or an invalid combination of instructions in the current packet (DFA), it closes the current bundle and advances to the next cycle. The non-interlocked nature of our

The Developer Policy document (https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html) contains a Section "C API Changes". There is no corresponding section for C++ API Changes. LLVM is somewhat different from most libraries in that the main language is C++ but the C++ API is not guaranteed to be stable in any shape or form from what I understand. I think it would be useful to have a "C++ API

Hi everyone, I'm in the formative stage of my PhD studies. My current focus is on integrated approaches to instruction scheduling and register allocation. A colleague pointed me to Evan Cheng's talk at the August 2008 developer meeting [1], where he very briefly mentioned allowing the register allocator to reschedule instructions as a "crazy idea" for the future. I

Hi All, The description of ScheduleDAGMILive [1] says: ScheduleDAGMILive is an implementation of ScheduleDAGInstrs that schedules machine instructions while updating LiveIntervals and tracking regpressure. Does the live interval and register pressure part of ScheduleDAGMILive mean the subclass of ScheduleDAGMILive is a pre-RA scheduler? I assume the post-RA scheduler no need to take