Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-28 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 5, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> + if (flag_sched_last_insn_heuristic >> + && NONDEBUG_INSN_P (last_nondebug_scheduled_insn)) >> Isn't that always true now > Not if it's the initial NOTE. >> (except we should probably initialize it to NULL_RTX and check for >> that here)? > Go

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-05 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 5, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/05/2011 11:05 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> While debugging the -fcompare-debug regression that turned out to be >> independently reported as 48403, I got slightly annoyed that >> rank_for_schedule would walk a sequence of debug insns over and over, >

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-05 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 04/05/2011 11:05 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > While debugging the -fcompare-debug regression that turned out to be > independently reported as 48403, I got slightly annoyed that > rank_for_schedule would walk a sequence of debug insns over and over, > once per compare. I figured it might be use

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-05 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 4, 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > There were a few places where last_scheduled_insn wasn't just examined > on its own, but code wanted to walk backwards and forwards from it. This > patch adapts them. I've also included Steven's patch from the bugzilla. While debugging the -fcompare-debug

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-04 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 04/04/2011 06:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >> On 04/04/2011 11:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> Ok after retest? >>> >> Ok, thanks. >> >> > > I bootstrapped it on Linux/x86-64 and checked it in. That was slightly premature, but the tests did n

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-04 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 04/04/2011 11:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> >> I eventually managed to reproduce it, and even figured out what I'd >> stupidly been doing wrong with my bootstraps which caused me not to see >> this. >> >> There were a few places where l

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-04 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 04/04/2011 11:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: I eventually managed to reproduce it, and even figured out what I'd stupidly been doing wrong with my bootstraps which caused me not to see this. There were a few places where last_scheduled_insn wasn't just examined on its own, but code wanted to wa

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-04 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/02/2011 02:55 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt >> wrote: >>> I have a number of patches that will be necessary for a new target. Some >>> of these can be applied now as cleanups, so I'm submit them n

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-04 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 04/02/2011 02:55 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt > wrote: >> I have a number of patches that will be necessary for a new target. Some >> of these can be applied now as cleanups, so I'm submit them now. >> >> This changes the schedule_block main loop not to m

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-04-01 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > I have a number of patches that will be necessary for a new target. Some > of these can be applied now as cleanups, so I'm submit them now. > > This changes the schedule_block main loop not to move instructions while > computing the schedule.

Re: Scheduler cleanups, 1/N

2011-03-31 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/24/11 07:07, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > I have a number of patches that will be necessary for a new target. Some > of these can be applied now as cleanups, so I'm submit them now. > > This changes the schedule_block main loop not to move instruction