Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Borja F. <bor...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 19:20:05
|
Ok great. If you want that piece of code really working, you can tell llvm
to expand the mul nodes, you can do it in the AVRTargetLowering constructor
with the setOperationAction.
To generate those instructions it's quite easy, just use a pointer as an
incoming argument in a function and store or load values from there, then
use x[3] and such to get offsets in relation to a base address for std/ldd.
It's important to test offsets in range (up to 63) and bigger ones which
need materialization each time.
2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
