Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

[Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...>]

No, regular calls/and/xor/or works fine with 3335977107.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:

> This is very weird. Do you get this problem with other code when you use
> this particular number (3335977107) like with a regular call or with an
> and/xor/or?
>
>
> 2012/6/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>
>> I also get the wrong result compiling that snippet...
>>
>> I have tried to revert the last patches, those that not needed for
>> syncing with the llvm repo, same result. I have also updated llvm. Same
>> result.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any ideas what it could be :)
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the patch there!
>>> Very interesting because I'm not getting that error in icall at all, I'm
>>> getting the second code snippet you pasted.
>>>
>>> With this code:
>>> long icall(long (*x)(long))
>>> {
>>>   return x(0xC6D6F893)+5;
>>> }
>>>
>>> I get:
>>>     movw    r19:r18, r25:r24
>>>
>>>     ldi    r22, 147
>>>     ldi    r23, 248
>>>     ldi    r24, 214
>>>     ldi    r25, 198
>>>     movw    r31:r30, r19:r18
>>>     icall
>>>     subi    r22, 251
>>>     sbci    r23, 255
>>>     sbci    r24, 255
>>>     sbci    r25, 255
>>>     ret
>>>
>>> Can you re check to see what's going on?
>>>
>>> The comments in zext.ll and sext.ll are there for reference, they cover
>>> the cases implemented in the pseudo instruction expander, that way we're
>>> able to know what test covers each case.
>>> Yes i have comments for the memory tests, I'll write them in the next
>>> email. We should continue with memory operations, there are many more
>>> things to test there that i'll list next time. For now we have to see
>>> what's going on with that failing test.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/6/23 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>
>>>> I've committed the small change in Targets.cpp as you described.
>>>>
>>>> We are breaking a test now. In call.s, icall is loading arguments
>>>> incorrectly now.
>>>>
>>>> The instruction %1 = call i32 %foo(i32 3335977107)
>>>>  gives:
>>>> ldi r24, 147
>>>> ldi r25, 248
>>>>  ldi r22, 214
>>>> ldi r23, 198
>>>> but should give:
>>>> ldi r22, 147
>>>> ldi r23, 248
>>>> ldi r24, 214
>>>>  ldi r25, 198
>>>>
>>>> Also in your new sext.ll and zext.ll tests there are some comments
>>>> above each function, should these be deleted?
>>>>
>>>> Last did you have any comments above the memory tests?
>>>>
>>>> Any preferences for what I should continue on?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nicklas, in the meantime while the patch gets fixed you can manually
>>>>> fix the error by adding that virtual BuiltinVaListKind
>>>>> getBuiltinVaListKind() const function in the AVR class, in the above link
>>>>> you have an example on how to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/6/19 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> John can you fix this issue, i have a different local copy of
>>>>>> Targets.cpp that i don't want to change now with the patch in SVN. The fix
>>>>>> is in this commit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp?r1=158334&r2=158592&sortby=date&diff_format=h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so updating the patch file will do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/18 Borja Ferrer <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>