On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> "Amker.Cheng" writes:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In function new_ready, it calls to min_insn_conflict_delay with
>>> "min_insn_conflict_delay (curr_state, next, next)".
>>> But the function's comments say that it retur
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Amker.Cheng" writes:
In function new_ready, it calls to min_insn_conflict_delay with
"min_insn_conflict_delay (curr_state, next, next)".
But the function's comments say that it returns minimal delay of issue of
the 2nd insn after issuing the 1st in given state.
W
"Amker.Cheng" writes:
>In function new_ready, it calls to min_insn_conflict_delay with
> "min_insn_conflict_delay (curr_state, next, next)".
> But the function's comments say that it returns minimal delay of issue of
> the 2nd insn after issuing the 1st in given state.
> Why the last two para
Hi :
In function new_ready, it calls to min_insn_conflict_delay with
"min_insn_conflict_delay (curr_state, next, next)".
But the function's comments say that it returns minimal delay of issue of
the 2nd insn after issuing the 1st in given state.
Why the last two parameter for the call are both "
