[LLVMdev] <IsKill> getting from MachineOperand is just <Used> attribute from logic.
hbrenkun at yahoo.cn
Thu Jan 14 21:33:14 PST 2010
Thanks for your answer.
I hope to trace all physical register liverange in MachineBasicBlock.
In my test, I find LiveIn message of MBB can not give all livein
physical register. So I write a pass to recollect livein message
by scan MBB.
Current case tell me that just to scan MachineOperand's isDef, isKill, IsDead attribute to rebuild physical register's livein will have bug.
If I use add missing live-in into <live-in list for each MBB>,
Could I can know which physical register is live at any time?
If yes, it is easy for my pass.
If not, I need to treat isKill and isDead as isUse, then implement a pass to anaylze CFG to delete unvalid livein message.
--- 10年1月15日，周五, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> 写道：
> 发件人: Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>
> 主题: Re: [LLVMdev] <IsKill> getting from MachineOperand is just <Used> attribute from logic.
> 收件人: "任坤" <hbrenkun at yahoo.cn>
> 抄送: "llvm" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> 日期: 2010年1月15日,周五,上午11:44
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:39 PM, 任坤 wrote:
> > But I want do some optimization after register
> alloction by adjusting
> > register using. I scan MachineBasicBlock to analyze
> operand's IsKill, IsDead , IsDef attribute to get a physical
> register's liverange. But I get a strange case at MBB.jpg.
> You can also look at RegisterScavenging.cpp and
> MachineVerifier.cpp. They are doing the same thing.
> > R4 is marked <kill> at MBB0. If I
> scan R4's liverange by [MBB0->MBB1->MBB2]. I will find
> R4 first is killed, then is used. It can not unlogisch.
> Attually R4 just is <Used>. It will cause my
> optimization pass crash(Actually, I ingore Live In message
> of MBB. I recollect live in messges at my pass.).
> A register should not be used after it is killed, and if it
> is needed by a successor block, it should be live out.
> Note that a register in the live-in list of an MBB is not
> always live-out from all predecessors. A register defined by
> IMPLICIT_DEF can be optimized away entirely.
> > 1. Does <kill> attribute of R4 at MBB0 is
> a unimportant and redundancy messages, Or a little
> You have probably found a bug. Can you reproduce it with
> one of the normal back ends?
> > 2. Is it unreliable to get a physical register's
> liverange by Kill, Dead messages from MachineBasicBlock??
> You also need to use the live-in list for each MBB, but
> otherwise it should be reliable. Look at how
> RegisterScavenger is doing it.
More information about the llvm-dev