Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

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

Nicklas, are you still working in those memory tests?

2012/6/26 Borja Ferrer <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>