From: Borja F. <bor...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 16:44:13
|
No problem, I just wanted to know what was the status, no need to rush it :) 2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...> > No, sorry, I've been busy lately. I will take it up again in the next days. > > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |