Jojo 在 2020年11月5日 +0800 AM2:25，Jim Wilson <j...@sifive.com>，写道： > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 11:45 PM Jojo R <jiejie_r...@c-sky.com> wrote: > > From origin insn seqs, I think the insn 'r500=unspec[r100] 300’ is in > > Good place because of the bypass of my pipeline description, it is not > > needed to schedule. > > ... > > Is there any way to control my case ? > > Or my description of pipeline is not good ? > > I would suggest looking at verbose scheduler debugging dumps to see exactly > what decisions the scheduler is making. See the -fsched-verbose=X option, > and give it a value of at least 9 as I think that is the highest supported > value. This will put a lot of info in the scheduler rtl dumps that will help > you understand what the scheduler is doing. You can then use that info to > try to figure out how to tweak your port to get the result you want. The > problem may not be in the pipeline description file. You might need to > define some macros. See the list of TARGET_SCHED_* macros you can use to > control how the scheduler works. > > Jim >
3Q, I have more log details about for scheduler with -fsched-verbose=9 And I found the return of rank_for_schedule is not best for my case, I submit a patch as https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/558131.html. The dep_list_size of insn do not describe the costs between insns, please review it. Thanks.
