On 07/01/11 16:50, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: > On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: >> On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: >>>> I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody >>>> will >>>> care to mark all offending insns with an attribute. >>> >>> I don't know. IIRC when I looked at sh or whatever the broken port was, >>> it was only two insns - there would still be some value in being able to >>> assert that all other insns have a reservation. >> OK, I will take a look on x86-64 and will get back with more information. >> >> Andrey > So, I have made an attempt to bootstrap on x86-64 with the extra assert > in selective scheduling that assumes the DFA state always changes when > issuing a recog_memoized >=0 insn (patch attached). Indeed, there are > just a few general insns that don't have proper reservations. However, > it was a surprise to me to see that almost any insn with SSE registers > fails this assert and thus does not get properly scheduled.
Probably because it's picking a scheduling description for an old CPU? With "-mcpu=pentium" probably none of the newer patterns has a reservation. That may scupper any plans to use this attribute on i386. > Overall, the work on fixing those seems doable, it took just a day to > get the compiler bootstrapped (of course, the testsuite may bring much > more issues). So, if there is an agreement on marking a few offending > insns with the new attribute, we can proceed with the help of somebody > from the x86 land on fixing those and researching for other targets. + (set (attr "nondfa_insn") (if_then_else (eq_attr "alternative" "3,4,5,6") (const_int 1) (const_int 0))) I think this shouldn't use (const_int x); you want to be able to write (set_attr "nondfa_insn" "0,0,0,1,1,1,1") Bernd
