Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-07-08 08:43:33
|
Thanks again.
I've noticed that in the instruction: LDD Rd, Y/Z+q, the range for
q generated is 0<=q<63 , whereas the instruction set also includes 63, i.e.
0<=q<=63.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...> wrote:
> postinc/predec is fragile yes. Back when i was coding that part I used to
> test it with a for loop, something like:
>
> for (i=0; i<x; i++) {a++ = b;}
> being a a ptr.
> OR
> *a++ = 1;
> *a++=2;
> etc if you dont want to use a loop, better to make the test shorter.
>
> There are many cases where a postinc/predec should be generated but it
> doesnt happen, so that will have to be optimized later, but for now adding
> tests for very basic stuff is fine.
>
>
> 2012/7/7 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>
>> That sounds good for std/ldd. Regarding postinc/predec I think the
>> generated code is too fragile to test good, but I will look further into if
>> it's possible to find a better test.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
