[LLVMdev] LLVM pass question

[Reed Kotler]

Turns out to be a really easy fix.

The problem is that AsmPrinter initializes some things in the base class 
of target lowering, so when I substitute a new target lowering, this 
initializiation was not taking place.

Fortunately, AsmPrinter is already a subclass of MipsAsmPrinter so I 
just need to add the following line to runOnMachineFunction ins 
MipsAsmPrinter.

   const_cast<TargetLoweringObjectFile&>(getObjFileLowering())
     .Initialize(OutContext, TM);

I need to add the optimization to not call this if the subtarget kind 
has not changed.

On 03/27/2013 02:32 PM, Reed Kotler wrote:
> So the switching between mips16 and mips32 on a per function basis seems
> to basically be working except that asm printer has some kind of
> issue here.
>
> I'm debugging that now.
>
> I get this:
> lc: /home/rkotler/workspace/llvmpb6/include/llvm/MC/MCStreamer.h:224:
> void llvm::MCStreamer::SwitchSection(const llvm::MCSection*): Assertion
> `Section && "Cannot switch to a null section!"' failed.
> 0  llc             0x00000000015a98b1
> llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*) + 38
> 1  llc             0x00000000015a9b2e
> 2  llc             0x00000000015a9586
> 3  libpthread.so.0 0x00007f0f517568f0
> 4  libc.so.6       0x00007f0f5083da75 gsignal + 53
> 5  libc.so.6       0x00007f0f508415c0 abort + 384
> 6  libc.so.6       0x00007f0f50836941 __assert_fail + 241
> 7  llc             0x000000000096d740
> 8  llc             0x0000000000f7d1ec
> llvm::AsmPrinter::EmitFunctionHeader() + 160
>
>
> Maybe someone knows how this dependency can exist from switching
> subtarget information.
>
> If so, TIA.
>
> My additional work is to turn BasicTransformInfoPass into a function
> pass from an immutable pass but I don't need that right now for this
> functionality in mips16/32 dual mode. It will just generate worse code
> until I solve that.
>
> Reed
>
> On 03/27/2013 11:17 AM, Reed Kotler wrote:
>> This seems to work okay.
>>
>> I register both the Mips16 and non Mips16 passes of the instruction
>> selector and then those return false if they are not supposed to be
>> running.
>>
>> Make-check at least passes in this case.
>>
>> So in principle turn on the dual mode now and debug whatever misc is
>> left.
>>
>> For this I insert another pass before the mips16 and non mips16 passes.
>>
>> On 03/27/2013 10:19 AM, Reed Kotler wrote:
>>> What I am thinking of now is to just register the MIPS116 and MIPS32
>>> DAGToDAGISel passes and then within run on machine function, I can just
>>> return if the current mode indicates that mips16 is needed for example,
>>> so the run on machine function for Mips32 would return immediately.
>>>
>>> On 03/27/2013 10:05 AM, Reed Kotler wrote:
>>>> I guess another way to do this is to just register both passes for
>>>> mips16 and mips32 and have them return immediately if it is not their
>>>> turn to run.
>>>>
>>>> On 03/27/2013 08:58 AM, Reed Kotler wrote:
>>>>> I'm implementing this ability to switch between mips16 and mips32 on a
>>>>> per function basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> One issue that I've run into is regarding the DAGToDAGIsel pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a different subclass for mips16 and non mips16 ( conceivably
>>>>> later there could be a separate one for micromips).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I need to run a different pass depending on whether it's mips16 or
>>>>> mips32.
>>>>>
>>>>> My initial plan was to create a dummy ModuleDAGToDAGIsel whose sole
>>>>> purpose in it's run machine function was to decide which one of these
>>>>> to run and then call an appropriate DAGToDAGIIsel but I'm running into
>>>>> some issue where that class wants to be started up by the pass manager
>>>>> and not another pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now I'm think that maybe I should have either:
>>>>> 1) The ModuleDAGToDAGIsel pass add another pass.
>>>>> 2) Maybe create two passes, one for Mips16 and one for Mips32 and have
>>>>> them be dependent on the ModuleDAGToDAGISel pass and then turn them on
>>>>> or off depending on which one needs to be run for this function.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm reading the pass code now to understand this better but thought
>>>>> that
>>>>> someone might know the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reed