Ayal Zaks writes:
>> (FWIW, libav did show up extra differences when using the patch
>> that I'd originally submitted. They were due to the count_preds
>> and count_succs thing that you picked up in your review.)
>
>
> (These differences had no noticable consequences performance-wise, right?)
We
2011/8/8 Richard Sandiford
>
> Ayal Zaks writes:
> >> OK. For the follow-on iv patch, it seemed easier to keep both bounds
> >> inclusive for the loop, then make the "end" exclusive when setting the
> >> out parameters. (Note that there shouldn't be any problem with overflow
> >> when making th
Ayal Zaks writes:
>> OK. For the follow-on iv patch, it seemed easier to keep both bounds
>> inclusive for the loop, then make the "end" exclusive when setting the
>> out parameters. (Note that there shouldn't be any problem with overflow
>> when making the bound exclusive, because the size of t
Hi Richard,
2011/8/4 Richard Sandiford
>
> Hi Ayal,
>
> Thanks to you and Revital for the replies. The reason I asked is that
> I wanted to rewrite gen_sched_window so that it has only one loop over
> the PSPs and one loop over the PSSs.
This rewrite makes perfect sense regardless of any follo
Hi Ayal,
Thanks to you and Revital for the replies. The reason I asked is that
I wanted to rewrite gen_sched_window so that it has only one loop over
the PSPs and one loop over the PSSs. I have a follow-up patch to use
iv analysis to reduce the number of memory dependencies (or at least
increase
(sorry for replicated submissions, had to convert to plain text)
>2011/7/27 Revital1 Eres
>
>Hello Richard,
>
>
>> I ask because in the final range:
>>
>> start = early_start;
>> end = MIN (end, early_start + ii);
>> /* Schedule the node close to it's predecessors. */
>>
Hello Richard,
> I ask because in the final range:
>
> start = early_start;
> end = MIN (end, early_start + ii);
> /* Schedule the node close to it's predecessors. */
> step = 1;
>
> END is an exclusive bound. It seems like we might be double-counting
here,
> and effectiv
Richard Sandiford writes:
> I've been looking at SMS, and have a question about get_sched_window.
> When there are previously-scheduled predessors, we use:
>
> if (e->data_type == MEM_DEP)
> end = MIN (end, SCHED_TIME (v_node) + ii - 1);
>
> to get an upper bound on the s
I've been looking at SMS, and have a question about get_sched_window.
When there are previously-scheduled predessors, we use:
if (e->data_type == MEM_DEP)
end = MIN (end, SCHED_TIME (v_node) + ii - 1);
to get an upper bound on the scheduling window that is permitted
