Skip to content

Conversation

andcarminati
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

; CHECK-NEXT: nop
; CHECK-NEXT: nop
; CHECK-NEXT: nop
; CHECK-NEXT: mov p0, sp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting case, I will take a look!

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I looks like we combine frame index + load store to _spill variants. I tried to prevent this case, but it also prevents some good opportunities.

if (!MFI.isFixedObjectIndex(FrameIdx))
continue;

if (IsUsedByLoad(FIInstr))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we worry about stores?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why do we differentiate between loads and non-loads? shouldn't it only be related to the FrameIdx?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we could vanish this, because we break the chain using hasMixedLoadStoreUse. I will check this.

}

bool Changed = false;
auto ReplaceFI = [&](std::vector<MachineInstr *> &FIs) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: with the simplification, do we need the lambda here?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants