Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

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

What about directmem.ll to keep it a bit shorter?

Btw, the ldd/std tests and such keep them in two separate files, like
load.ll and store.ll since they're going to get quite big on their own.

2012/6/25 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>

> I've commited the tests after going over your comments.
>
> The file should probably still be renamed though, we could call it
> loadstoredirect.ll? Then tests for st/std/ld/ldd could be in a file called
> loadstoreindirect.ll?
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> Ohhh well, happy to hear it's now fixed!! Now we can move to something
>> else.
>>
>> Memory test comments:
>> First of all since you're testing lds/sts i would rename the file to
>> something else, mem is too general, but i can't think of a good name now,
>> suggestions are welcome.
>> 1) I would remove the allocX_local tests, I'm writing alloca tests
>> somewhere else, and they're unrelated to sts/lds.
>> 2) Change all imm values to something that doesn't contain zeros, as we
>> mentioned previously. This will change some tests a bit, but it's trivial
>> to implement.
>>
>> Apart of these comments, the tests look great.
>>
>> Once this gets done we can then move to other memory tests, mainly
>> testing st/ld and std/ldd instructions. Which require testing displacements
>> of small and big offsets, postinc and predec operations, and probably other
>> stuff that I'll have to look up.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/6/25 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>