Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

[Borja F. <bor...@gm...>]

You've done it right, the problem is here:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp?r1=158334&r2=158592&sortby=date&diff_format=h

it's caused by a recent API change that has broken out of tree targets,
i'll fix it soon.

2012/6/18 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>

> Yes of course.
>
> I'm having some problems compiling getting the following error:
>
> /avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4172:16: error:
> allocating an object of
>       abstract class type 'AVRTargetInfo'
>     return new AVRTargetInfo(T);
>                ^
> /avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Basic/../../include/clang/Basic/TargetInfo.h:406:29:
> note:
>       unimplemented pure virtual method 'getBuiltinVaListKind' in
> 'AVRTargetInfo'
>   virtual BuiltinVaListKind getBuiltinVaListKind() const = 0;
>                             ^
> 1 error generated.
>
> I think I have applied the patches from svn correctly, at least did it a
> few times. I'm not stuck, but any ideas would be nice.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> Ok great!
>>
>> One more thing about the icall test, it can be further reduced because:
>>   %1 = alloca i32 (i32)*
>>   store i32 (i32)* %foo, i32 (i32)** %1
>>   %2 = load i32 (i32)** %1
>>
>> all that code is redundant, you're getting it because you've ran it with
>> -O0. If you think about it, you've allocated an i32 var in the stack just
>> to copy the value of foo but then it's not used at all. This code is
>> typical from unoptimized builds, so you can reduce it to something like:
>>   %3 = call i32 %foo(i32 3335977107)
>>   %4 = add nsw i32 %3, 5
>>
>> here you're using the foo incoming arg directly.
>> So as a recommendation, I would also run clang with -03 to get optimized
>> outputs that are usually clean of redundant allocas.
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/18 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>
>>> I've committed the updated tests, excluding mem.ll awaiting your
>>> feedback on it (Besides not using immediate 0).
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>
>>>> return test:
>>>> 1) you can remove the @return8_reg() test since it's completely
>>>> commented out.
>>>> 2) in return64_arg2 you're always going to push r29:r28 as we disccused
>>>> in a previous email, so you can remove the SPLOW/HI vars, also SP is going
>>>> to be always the Y reg pair. Using Z here would be a bug.
>>>> 3) in return64_trunc same as in point 2.
>>>> 4) add a :TODO: test returning byval structs.
>>>>
>>>> call test:
>>>> 1) in the icall test, the code you're testing is a bit fragile.
>>>> Basically if you run it with -O3 it will get optimized away and you wont
>>>> get an icall. Instead, generate the icall using a function pointer from an
>>>> incoming argument.
>>>> 2) do the same as in 1 but passing an argument to the icall (any data
>>>> type will do). (remember i had to fix this last week, so testing it is
>>>> imporant in case it breaks again in the future)
>>>> 3) do the same as in 1 using the return value of the icall (any data
>>>> type will do).
>>>>
>>>> One general thing concerning all written tests up to now, can you
>>>> change all imm values (including the ones already commited), so that you
>>>> don't test things like "ldi reg, 0". So for a 16bit type instead of using a
>>>> 5 use a value were none of the registers are zero like 0xABCD instead of
>>>> 0x0005 where the hi part is 0. In the future we'll add an optimization that
>>>> relies on r0 having a 0, so many tests will break because of this since we
>>>> could get a mov reg, r0 instead of an ldi.
>>>>
>>>> I'll reply tomorrow with comments about the memory tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/17 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, I'm reviewing them now
>>>>>
>>>>> El viernes, 15 de junio de 2012, Nicklas Bo Jensen escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review these tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixed in SVN, let me know any other issues. Thanks for reporting it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/5 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something has changed in llvm or maybe it never worked, can't
>>>>>> remember, but I'm unable to pass arguments through an icall, I'm
>>>>>> investigating for a fix. In the meantime you can disable that assertion
>>>>>> until I come with a proper fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/4 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll take a look to it shortly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/3 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. Sure your explanations are really clear :) Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm having some trouble testing icall, which i'm doing using a
>>>>>> function pointer. I've attached a small C example, the corresponding
>>>>>> cleaned up llvm code and the output of running llc on it. There is a failed
>>>>>> assertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just checking for the sub instructions that allocate and restore the
>>>>>> stack should be enough, also check that the allocated size is correct, the
>>>>>> rest of stuff can be omitted. I would also check the whole sequence
>>>>>> including the interrupt instructions in a single test, no need to do it
>>>>>> everywhere. When we get to test allocas we'll have to test for prologue and
>>>>>> epilogue code, which is very similar to the one you're seeing here.
>>>>>> About testing push and pops: no need to test that, it's part of the
>>>>>> prologue/epilogue of the function, so it's not related to calls, also, that
>>>>>> is handled by llvm so I wouldn't test that at all. Remember to test the
>>>>>> icall instruction, as far as I remember it needs to be tweaked because for
>>>>>> now it doesn't save the registers between calls like regular calls do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, memory instructions, most of the instructions you see in that
>>>>>> file that end up with a "w" are pseudo instructions (excluding sbiw/adiw,
>>>>>> movw or other real ones that work with 16bit data) meaning that they dont
>>>>>> get into the final assembly since they don't exist in the instruction set.
>>>>>> It's a trick to make llvm think they're supported instructions that way,
>>>>>> movws and the real 16bit insts get generated, however these pseudo ops get
>>>>>> expanded into 8bit ops, that's why you wont never see those in the final
>>>>>> assembly, and if you ever see one then it's a bug. So if you do an and with
>>>>>> 16bit types, llvm selects the andw pseudo op, and a later pass expands it
>>>>>> into two real 8bit and insts that are supported by the avr inst set, dont'
>>>>>> know if this makes things clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/5/31 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Checking for stack allocation and restore could be something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ; CHECK: in [[REG1:r[0-9]+]], 61
>>>>>> ; CHECK: in [[REG2:r[0-9]+]], 62
>>>>>> ; CHECK: sbiw [[REG2]]:[[REG1]], 4
>>>>>> ; CHECK: out 62, [[REG2]]
>>>>>> ; CHECK: out 61, [[REG1]]
>>>>>> ; ... other tests
>>>>>> ; CHECK: in [[REG1:r[0-9]+]], 61
>>>>>> ; CHECK: in [[REG2:r[0-9]+]], 62
>>>>>> ; CHECK: subi [[REG1]], 254
>>>>>> ; CHECK: sbci [[REG2]], 255
>>>>>> ; CHECK: out 62, [[REG2]]
>>>>>> ; CHECK: out 61, [[REG1]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it something like that you have in mind? Should disabling and
>>>>>> enabling interupts (cli+writeback of SREG) also be tested?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Checkin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>