[CodeGen] Clear InitUndef pass new register cache between pass runs #90967
Conversation
|
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
|
Tagging reviewers: |
joe-img
force-pushed
the
riscv-init-undef-cache-clean
branch
from
3216f21 to
8a0847e
Compare
|
Ping |
joe-img
force-pushed
the
riscv-init-undef-cache-clean
branch
from
8a0847e to
602efe5
Compare
|
Ping @topperc @BeMg @Stylie777 |
joe-img
force-pushed
the
riscv-init-undef-cache-clean
branch
from
602efe5 to
da979a0
Compare
|
Ping |
Multiple invocations of the pass could interfere with eachother, preventing some undefs being initialised.
nikic
force-pushed
the
riscv-init-undef-cache-clean
branch
from
da979a0 to
ad5aa0f
Compare
|
@joe-img Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here. If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! |
…lvm#90967) Multiple invocations of the pass could interfere with eachother, preventing some undefs being initialised. I found it very difficult to create a unit test for this due to it being dependent on particular allocations of a previous function. However, the bug can be observed here: https://godbolt.org/z/7xnMo41Gv with the creation of the illegal instruction `vnsrl.wi v9, v8, 0`
…lvm#90967) Multiple invocations of the pass could interfere with eachother, preventing some undefs being initialised. I found it very difficult to create a unit test for this due to it being dependent on particular allocations of a previous function. However, the bug can be observed here: https://godbolt.org/z/7xnMo41Gv with the creation of the illegal instruction `vnsrl.wi v9, v8, 0`
…lvm#90967) Multiple invocations of the pass could interfere with eachother, preventing some undefs being initialised. I found it very difficult to create a unit test for this due to it being dependent on particular allocations of a previous function. However, the bug can be observed here: https://godbolt.org/z/7xnMo41Gv with the creation of the illegal instruction `vnsrl.wi v9, v8, 0`
…lvm#90967) Multiple invocations of the pass could interfere with eachother, preventing some undefs being initialised. I found it very difficult to create a unit test for this due to it being dependent on particular allocations of a previous function. However, the bug can be observed here: https://godbolt.org/z/7xnMo41Gv with the creation of the illegal instruction `vnsrl.wi v9, v8, 0`
Multiple invocations of the pass could interfere with eachother, preventing some undefs being initialised.
I found it very difficult to create a unit test for this due to it being dependent on particular allocations of a previous function. However, the bug can be observed here: https://godbolt.org/z/7xnMo41Gv with the creation of the illegal instruction
vnsrl.wi v9, v8, 0Does this patch require a unit test?