Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
