[PATCH] Fix write-back value propagation for pre-indexed addressing modes

[Silviu Baranga]

Committed in r180609.

Thanks,
Silviu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Silviu Baranga [mailto:silbar01 at arm.com]
> Sent: 26 April 2013 15:02
> To: 'Hal Finkel'
> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Dmitry Antipov
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix write-back value propagation for pre-indexed
> addressing modes
> 
> Great! I'll commit the patch by the end of today.
> 
> Thanks,
> Silviu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov]
> > Sent: 26 April 2013 13:36
> > To: Silviu Baranga
> > Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Dmitry Antipov
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix write-back value propagation for pre-indexed
> > addressing modes
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Silviu Baranga" <Silviu.Baranga at arm.com>
> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> > > Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu, "Dmitry Antipov"
> > <antipov at dev.rtsoft.ru>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:21:35 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix write-back value propagation for pre-
> indexed
> > addressing modes
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov]
> > > > Sent: 25 April 2013 20:58
> > > > To: Silviu Baranga
> > > > Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Dmitry Antipov
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix write-back value propagation for
> > > > pre-indexed
> > > > addressing modes
> > >
> > >
> > > > I understand; we're kind of talking past each other at this
> point.
> > > > In
> > > > any case, looking at the ARM implementation, I disagree with
> > > > Dmitry's
> > > > interpretation of the problem. As I wrote the code in question,
> > > > please
> > > > feel free to commit your fix.
> > >
> > > Sorry about that. The problem is reasonably complex and we both
> seem
> > > to
> > > have strong divergent views about it.
> >
> > It is not your fault, and we're on the same page. I had been trying
> to
> > construct an explanation based on Dimitry's diagnosis of the problem,
> > which essentially included the possibility that PRE_DEC on ARM was
> > essentially a PRE_INC with a negative offset. But looking at the code
> > myself, I think that he was misinterpreting things.
> >
> > >
> > > > I would really like, however, if we had a test case for this. If
> > > > you
> > > > had code that the current implementation miscompiled, can you
> place
> > > > an
> > > > assert that triggers in the bad case (pre_dec + swap), and use
> > > > bugpoint
> > > > to reduce the test case?
> > >
> > > I've only seen the pre_dec + swap failure in a user of the LLVM
> > > libraries,
> > > and I cannot reproduce the failure with llc (I've really tried).
> > > Also, the
> > > failure goes away with even small modifications of the test case.
> > >
> > > I would actually like to include Dmitry's test case if he's OK with
> > > that
> > > so at least the patch does gets a test case.
> >
> > Okay. FWIW, Dmitry did not respond to my last e-mail from last week,
> so
> > if he does not respond promptly, I'm in favor of committing the fix
> and
> > then the test case later.
> >
> >  -Hal
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Silviu
> > >
> > >
> > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments
> > > are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not
> > > disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose,
> > > or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.
> > >