On 11-07-08 3:25 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 07.07.2011 20:18, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The changes in sel-sched.c is ok for me. i386.md changes look ok for
me too
but you should ask a x86 maintainer to get an approval for the change.
I think you should describe the attribute in the documentation
because it
is common for all targets.
I can not approve common.opt changes because it makes selective
scheduler
is default for the 2nd insn scheduling for all targets. Such change
should
be justified by thorough testing and benchmarking (compilation speed,
code
size, performance improvements) on several platforms (at least on
major ones).
I didn't intend to enable sel-sched for all targets, the patch was
just an RFC to see whether there is an agreement about usefulness of
such attribute, and the common.opt change was to show how I tested the
patch. I am sorry for not making it clear in the mail.
Sorry, for my misunderstanding. The patch itself with some work could
be submitted because the check is in the selective scheduling and it is
used as default just for few targets.
If the check were in haifa-scheduler, we would have a lot of troubles
and broken targets. Many targets have a lot of subtargets and I am sure
a lot of their descriptions are not full. To be honest, I have no idea
how to solve the problem of absence of some insn dfa descriptions with a
small pain. In any case, a big target maintainers involvement will be
required.
I guess, if we did the check optional, it could help. The target
maintainers could switch on the check and fix the insn description
absence if they want and when they want.
I am planning to check Bernd's thought about whether I selected the
right -mcpu switch for testing, as I was under impression that
nowadays this should be autodetected by configure. I will also modify
the attribute as suggested. Then we can discuss further. I am going
to leave on vacation soon though so I don't know when exactly I can
proceed with this.
Ok. Have a nice vacation.
