Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Borja F. <bor...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 18:20:58
|
Ok, I'm able to reproduce this crash with both clang and llc with -O0, with
-O3 I'm getting an error because it cant select the mul instruction which
is a known issue. I'm investigating now. Btw, is this part of a test you're
writing?
2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
