Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Borja F. <bor...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 18:51:20
|
Ok fixed, thanks for the report! If you now get the issue about the mul,
it's a known thing.
What do you mean by indirect mem accesses?
2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
