On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:28 PM, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:43:12AM +0000, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 11/05/14 02:30, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> >> Thanks very much for reviewing. I refined the patch according to your >> >> comments. Also made two small changes: a) skip breaking dependency >> >> between memory access and the corresponding base-reg modifying >> >> instruction. This feature doesn't help load/store pair that much and >> >> only increases compilation time. b) a minor bug fix in arm backend >> >> hook when calculating priority for memory accesses with minus offset. >> >> >> >> I am running bootstrap/test against latest trunk, and will adapt >> >> ChangeLog once get approved generally. So how about this one? >> > >> > OK for the trunk. Thanks for your patience. >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> >> Thanks for reviewing. For the record, attached patch is committed. >> The only update is I disabled the pass if peephole2 isn't in effect >> because it relies on peephole2 to do real fusion work. > > Hi Bin, > > The documentation for TARGET_SCHED_FUSION_PRIORITY doesn't look > right to me (see: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Scheduling.html ). > > I think you'll need to wrap your examples in something like @smallexample > tags if you want to maintain their formatting. > Hi James, Thanks very much for reporting this, will fix it.
Thanks, bin
