From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-06-24 20:23:12
|
Yes, I have four elements with value one filled by ParseExternFuncCallArgs. I can't tell if ParseExternFuncCallArgs is buggy, but it seems as though it is given that there are four arguments. For example CLI.Outs.size() evaluates to 4 in line 893. Is that correctly understood? On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...> wrote: > Indeed, if you mean the Size var set in line 750 it should be 4. The Args > vector should only contain 1 element because you only have 1 argument in > the function and the size should be set to 4. This is the reason of why the > arguments aren't reversed. In your case I guess you have 4 elements of size > 1. This vector is filled by ParseExternFuncCallArgs() or by > ParseFunctionArgs() depending on the call type, so the problem is there, in > this case ParseExternFuncCallArgs is doing the work right? So this is the > function you should debug. > > > 2012/6/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...> > >> You're right, it's the -O3 flag. >> >> I'm stepping through the code with the debugger right now. The indirect >> call does trigger AnalyzeArguments to reach line 768 (std::reverse). >> >> There is one thing puzzling me a bit, the argument size is calculated to >> be 1, i.e. Args[0] is 1, but shouldn't a 64bit argument evaluate to 4 in >> size? >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote: >> >>> With that command line I get the same code as you (now i get the spill i >>> wasn't getting before), however i still get correct code: >>> movw r31:r30, r25:r24 >>> >>> std Y+1, r30 >>> std Y+2, r31 >>> ldi r18, 136 >>> ldi r19, 153 >>> ldi r20, 255 >>> ldi r21, 238 >>> ldi r22, 221 >>> ldi r23, 204 >>> ldi r24, 187 >>> ldi r25, 170 >>> icall >>> >>> This is my usual command line: >>> >>> clang -O3 -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.bc -ccc-host-triple >>> avr-generic-generic -ccc-clang-archs avr >>> llc -O3 -march=avr test.bc -pre-RA-sched=default -regalloc=avrgreedy >>> -debug-only=isel -o test.S -print-isel-input -print-after-all -stats 2> dump >>> >>> >>> 2012/6/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...> >>> >>>> All patches should be installed and it has worked earlier when I wrote >>>> that test. I also have the clang patches, but I don't think it has anything >>>> to do with those. >>>> >>>> To compile icall.c, I would for example do: >>>> >>>> ../build/Debug+Asserts/bin/clang icall.c -S -emit-llvm -o icall.ll >>>> >>>> to view the llvm ir and to get assembler: >>>> >>>> ../build/Debug+Asserts/bin/llc icall.ll -march=avr -O3 -o icall.s >>>> >>>> I have that exact code as you describe, I will printf debug it later >>>> tonight. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok the problem I see is that you're not getting the arguments pieces >>>>> reversed. Can you check the code that performs this? This is done inside >>>>> AnalyzeArguments, exactly in line 768 done by std::reverse. Also check that >>>>> this function is being called in line 932. That should give you enough info >>>>> to debug it, use fprintfs to print out debugging info to help you otherwise >>>>> it's going to be hard to debug. >>>>> >>>>> I'm assuming you have all patches installed, including clang patches >>>>> right? >>>>> Paste the command line you're using to call clang because I'm not >>>>> getting >>>>> std Y+1, r30 >>>>> std Y+2, r31 >>>>> or any stack allocation as you get. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2012/6/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...> >>>>> >>>>>> Still gives the wrong code: >>>>>> ldi r24, 136 >>>>>> ldi r25, 153 >>>>>> ldi r22, 255 >>>>>> ldi r23, 238 >>>>>> ldi r20, 221 >>>>>> ldi r21, 204 >>>>>> ldi r18, 187 >>>>>> ldi r19, 170 >>>>>> >>>>>> I have also attached the output. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you get with the following code? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> long icall(long (*x)(long long)) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> return x(0xAABBCCDDEEFF9988LL)+5; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John could you check if you're getting the right code? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2012/6/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |