Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com> writes: > Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> But why wasn't the index 0 as expected for the insns outside of the block? > > Well it seems it checks for index 0 and sets the model_index as the current > maximum model_index count. This means the target_bb check isn't > strictly required - I build all of SPECINT2017 using the options from PR84068, > and all 577k instances of instruction from another bb would sort correctly. > > So it looks we can remove the target_bb check.
Thanks for testing that. Removing the check would be my preference, since model_index was supposed to cope with insns outside the model schedule, and I think other callers relied on that too. If we do end up finding cases in which INSN_MODEL_INDEX is nonzero for insns in other blocks, I think it would better to fix that, either by forcing it to zero at an appropriate place, or by checking the block in model_index itself. Richard
