Maxim and Vladimir Wrote: >>> Anyone can help me through this please? >>> >> It was supposed to have two latency definitions at most (one in >> define_insn_reservation and another one in define_bypass). That time it >> seemed enough for all processors supported by GCC. It also simplified >> semantics definition when two bypass conditions returns true for the >> same insn pair. >> >> If you really need more one bypass for insn pair, I could implement >> this. Please, let me know. In this case semantics of choosing latency >> time could be >> >> o time in first bypass occurred in pipeline description whose condition >> returns true >> o time given in define_insn_reservation > > I had a similar problem with ColdFire V4 scheduler model and the > solution for me was using adjust_cost() target hook; it is a bit > complicated, but it works fine. Search m68k.c for 'bypass' for more > information, comments there describe the thing in sufficient detail. Maxim, I read your implementation in m68k.c. IMHO it is a smart but tricky solution. For example it depends on the assumption that targetm.sched.adjust_cost () immediately called after bypass_p(). Also the redundant check and calls to min_insn_conflict_delay looks inefficient. I'd prefer to extend semantics to support more than one bypass.
Thanks - Joey
