[PATCH 1/5] refactor LiveInterval: introduce new LiveRanges class

[Quentin Colombet]

On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Matthias,
>> 
>> I have a couple of minor comments:
>> 1. Formatting changes do not help reviewing the patch, things like:
>> -    const_vni_iterator vni_end() const { return valnos.end(); }
>> +    const_vni_iterator vni_end() const   { return valnos.end(); }
>> Are necessary.
>> Note that I do not know the LLVM policy for this kind of thing, but I am not fond of additional space stuff to align block.
> I general I tried to keep unnecessary formatting changes out of the patches. At this place I did it anyway, because at least one of the small functions already had 2 spaces instead of 1 but for some strange reason not enough to match up the braces correctly…
Fair enough!

> 
>> 
>> 2. Because of the refactoring, the LiveRange class does not have the register field anymore, thus you remove the reference in the print method of the LiveRangeUpdater:
>> -      OS << "Clean " << PrintReg(LI->reg) << " updater: " << *LI << '\n';
>> […]
>> +      OS << "Clean updater: " << *LR << '\n';
>> 
>> This is fine of course.
>> However, I think you should also modify LiveInterval::print to print the register to ease debug purpose because now, we have less information (unless I missed something).
> Well after the patch the LiveRangeUpdater can operator on any liveranges not just for the vreg liveranges anymore, so it’s not really possible to show a sensible register number in each case and I didn’t want to push context like a register number around just to improve the debug output…
Agreed, that was what I was saying :).

> Always outputting the register number in LiveInterval::print would probably be a good idea but it would need some refactoring because there are lots of places in the code where it first prints the register number and the interval and I don’t want to see that info twice. I’ll see if I can create an extra patch for that.
Sounds good.

Thanks,
-Quentin

> 
> Thanks for the review,
> 	Matthias
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Quentin
>> 
>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> LiveRanges has logic to manage a set list LiveRange instances
>>> and a list of value numbers which previously was in LiveInterval,
>>> without having details like spill weight or a fixed register number.
>>> LiveInterval is now a direct subclass of LiveRanges and simply adds the
>>> spill weight and the register number.
>>> ---
>>> include/llvm/CodeGen/LiveInterval.h  | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>> lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp         | 128 +++++++++++++++----------------
>>> lib/CodeGen/LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp |  20 ++---
>>> 3 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 135 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> <0001-refactor-LiveInterval-introduce-new-LiveRanges-class.patch>_______________________________________________
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130830/53dee529/attachment.html>