Vladimir Makarov [mailto:vmaka...@redhat.com] wrote: > 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 Maxim and I encountered the same problem, and I believe we won't be the last two unlucky guys. Can you please implement the extended semantics, which looks good to me?
Thank s- Joey
