> Still OK :-)
Committed as r265304.
Regards
Robin
On 10/18/18 2:10 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added a check before calling priority in restore_pattern. In the last
> version, not checking that would lead to assertion failure in priority
> since the insn might already have been scheduled.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64 and ppc8,
Hi,
I added a check before calling priority in restore_pattern. In the last
version, not checking that would lead to assertion failure in priority
since the insn might already have been scheduled.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64 and ppc8, regtested on s390x.
Regards
Robin
--
gcc/ChangeL
On 10/16/18 12:48 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> A C++ style nit/question: instead of adding a new overload
>>
>> priority (rtx_insn *, bool)
>>
>> you can add a parameter with a default value in the existing
>> static function
>>
>> priority (rtx_insn *insn, bool force_recompute = false)
>
> Somet
> A C++ style nit/question: instead of adding a new overload
>
> priority (rtx_insn *, bool)
>
> you can add a parameter with a default value in the existing
> static function
>
> priority (rtx_insn *insn, bool force_recompute = false)
Sometimes I'm still stuck in C land with GCC :), thank
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Robin Dapp wrote:
> * haifa-sched.c (priority): Add force_recompute parameter.
> (apply_replacement):
> Call priority () with force_recompute = true.
> (restore_pattern): Likewise.
A C++ style nit/question: instead of adding a new overload
priority
Hi,
> See my last message. I find myself wondering if we need to reset
> INSN_PRIORITY_STATUS in update_insn_after_change and/or calling
> update_insn_after_change on INSN in additional to calling it on DESC->insn.
I tried calling update_insn_after_change even before sending my message
but it se
On 10/10/18 10:03 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as my last message
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00280.html) did not
> garner much attention, I'm posting it in proper patch form this time.
> The problem I'm trying to solve is that an insn's priority seems
> unchanged if the pr
