Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-06-25 11:13:12
|
OK, it's working now. I was missing MyFlags.Flags.setSplitPiece(j) in line
6450 in selectiondagbuilder.cpp. Not sure how it 'unpatched' itself.
Sorry for the trouble.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
> IIRC CLI.Outs.size() should be 4 because you have 4 argument pieces,
> however ParseExternFuncCallArgs should have filled the Args array to have
> only 1 element of size 4 because the function in reality has only 1
> argument. The clue here is investigating why is this failing for you and
> not for me. I guess you're jumping to the AnalyzeArguments from line 932,
> the one in the else clause.
>
> Add printf's to see what getSplitPiece returns for each iteration, in
> theory assuming this wrong behaviour this function should always return 0
> so when doing Out.push_back(Size), Size is always 1.
> The splitpiece stuff is set by MyFlags.Flags.setSplitPiece(j) in line 6450
> in selectiondagbuilder.cpp
>
>
> 2012/6/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
