Ayal Zaks writes:
>>> The issue of assigning stages to reg-moves is mostly relevant for
>>> prolog and epilog generation, which requires and receives special
>>> attention -- handled very nicely by ps_num_consecutive_stages! Note
>>> that currently a simple boolean indicator for (the exceptional c
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Ayal Zaks writes:
>>> I agree it's natural to schedule moves for intra-iteration dependencies
>>> in the normal get_sched_window way. But suppose we have a dependency:
>>>
>>> A --(T,N,1)--> B
>>>
>>> that requires two moves M1 and M2
Ayal Zaks writes:
>> I agree it's natural to schedule moves for intra-iteration dependencies
>> in the normal get_sched_window way. But suppose we have a dependency:
>>
>> A --(T,N,1)--> B
>>
>> that requires two moves M1 and M2. If we think in terms of cycles
>> (in the SCHED_TIME sense), the
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Ayal Zaks writes:
>>> >> + /* The cyclic lifetime of move->new_reg starts and ends at move->def
>>> >> + (the instruction that defines move->old_reg).
>>> >
>>> > So instruction I_REG_MOVE (new_reg=reg) must be scheduled before the
Ayal Zaks writes:
>> >> + /* The cyclic lifetime of move->new_reg starts and ends at move->def
>> >> + (the instruction that defines move->old_reg).
>> >
>> > So instruction I_REG_MOVE (new_reg=reg) must be scheduled before the
>> > next I_MUST_FOLLOW move/original-def (due to anti-dependence
o: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> > Cc: Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> >> > Date: 30/08/2011 03:29 PM
> >> > Subject: [4/4] Make SMS schedule register moves
> >> >
> >> > This is the move-scheduling patch itself. It should be fairly
> >
Thanks as always for the review.
Ayal Zaks writes:
>> Richard Sandiford wrote on 30/08/2011
>> 03:29:26 PM:
>>
>> > From: Richard Sandiford
>> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> > Cc: Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
>> > Date: 30/08/2011 03:29 P
> Richard Sandiford wrote on 30/08/2011
> 03:29:26 PM:
>
> > From: Richard Sandiford
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> > Date: 30/08/2011 03:29 PM
> > Subject: [4/4] Make SMS schedule register moves
> >
> > This
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
This is the move-scheduling patch itself. It should be fairly
self-explanatory. Let me know if it isn'
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> This is the move-scheduling patch itself. It should be fairly
>>> self-explanatory. Let me know if it isn't, and I'll try to improve
>>> the
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This is the move-scheduling patch itself. It should be fairly
>> self-explanatory. Let me know if it isn't, and I'll try to improve
>> the commentary.
>
> Can you add some testcases?
I don't think it's an
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This is the move-scheduling patch itself. It should be fairly
> self-explanatory. Let me know if it isn't, and I'll try to improve
> the commentary.
Can you add some testcases?
Thanks,
Richard.
> One potentially controversial change
This is the move-scheduling patch itself. It should be fairly
self-explanatory. Let me know if it isn't, and I'll try to improve
the commentary.
One potentially controversial change is to the way we handle moves
in the prologue and epilogue. The current code uses a conservative
check to decide
13 matches
Mail list logo
