| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Intrinsic already existed for llvm.SI.tbuffer.store
Needed tbuffer.load and also re-implementing the intrinsic as llvm.amdgcn.tbuffer.*
Added CodeGen tests for the 2 new variants added.
Left the original llvm.SI.tbuffer.store implementation to avoid issues with existing code
Subscribers: arsenm, kzhuravl, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, tony-tye, tpr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30687
llvm-svn: 306031
|
|
|
Summary:
See the new test case for one that was (non-deterministically) crashing
on trunk and deterministically hit the assertion that I added in D23302.
Basically, the machine function contains a sequence
DS_WRITE_B32 %vreg4, %vreg14:sub0, ...
DS_WRITE_B32 %vreg4, %vreg14:sub0, ...
%vreg14:sub1<def> = COPY %vreg14:sub0
and SILoadStoreOptimizer::mergeWrite2Pair merges the two DS_WRITE_B32
instructions into one before calling repairIntervalsInRange.
Now repairIntervalsInRange wants to repair %vreg14, in particular, and
ends up trying to repair %vreg14:sub1 as well, but that only becomes
active _after_ the range that is to be repaired, hence the crash due
to LR.find(...) == LR.begin() at the start of repairOldRegInRange.
I believe that just skipping those subrange is fine, but again, not too
familiar with that code.
Reviewers: MatzeB, kparzysz, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: llvm-commits, MatzeB
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23303
llvm-svn: 278268
|
