Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 18:29:33
|
Great, not just my setup then :)
No, it's not part of any tests. I'm just trying out different things. I'm
having some trouble generating indirect memory accesses, any tips?
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
