Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Borja F. <bor...@gm...> - 2012-07-07 19:59:10
|
Do only one store/load per test function, that way you won't get
predec/postinc instructions. What I was thinking of is: test x[0]=value;
for every data type, then do the same thing for load. Then test displaced
loads/stores with x[44]=value, you cover there std/ldd. And then finally
postinc/predec.
In fact from the piece of code you pasted, the optimal thing i guess would
be doing st X+, reg instead of wasting reg Z, so it could be improved, but
i'm not interested now in optimum code.
2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
> Of course, but I'm also thinking pre/post dec/inc.
>
> For example:
>
> void foo(char *arr)
> {
> arr[0] = 1;
> arr[1] = 2;
> arr[2] = 3;
> arr[3] = 4;
> }
>
> generates:
> movw r31:r30, r25:r24
> ldi r24, 1
> movw r27:r26, r31:r30
> st X+, r24
> ldi r24, 2
> st X, r24
> ldi r24, 3
> std Z+2, r24
> ldi r24, 4
> std Z+3, r24
> ret
>
> First two stores using st and last two using std. The performance of st vs
> std is equivalent right?
>
> Testing these is going to be hard if i'ts not deterministic which
> instruction is used when.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> This :
>> void test44(int *x)
>> {
>> x[0]=2;
>> }
>> gives:
>>
>> movw r31:r30, r25:r24
>> ldi r24, 2
>> ldi r25, 0
>> st Z, r24
>> std Z+1, r25
>> ret
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>
>>> Ah thanks! I cannot seem to get ld/st though?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
