From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 17:42:37
|
Could you try to compile the following piece of C: typedef unsigned char uint8_t; extern uint8_t as[4]; extern uint8_t bs[4]; void foo1(void) { for (uint8_t i = 0; i < 4; i++) { bs[i] = as[1]; } } I'm getting some wierd errors with llc(changing a bit dependent on -O0/-O3) like: llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAGNodes.h:534: const llvm::SDValue &llvm::SDNode::getOperand(unsigned int) const: Assertion `Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!"' failed. On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |