From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 19:14:03
|
Nice, that was a quick fix :) I'ts working now with -O0, with -O3 I'm getting the mul error. I mean st/std/ld/ldd. On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |