Hello! > Ping?
Please at least add and URL to the patch, it took me some time to found the latest version [1], I'm not even sure if it is the latest version... I assume that you cleared all issues with middle-end and scheduler maintainers, it is not clear from the message. + (1) IMUL instrction is on the top of list; Typo above. + static int issue_rate = -1; + int n_ready = *pn_ready; + rtx insn; + rtx insn1; + rtx insn2; Please put three definitions above on the same line. + int i; + sd_iterator_def sd_it; + dep_t dep; + int index = -1; + + /* set up issue rate */ + if (issue_rate < 0) + issue_rate = ix86_issue_rate(); Please set issue_rate unconditionally here. Also, please follow the GNU style of comments (Full sentence with two spaces after the dot) everywhere, e.g: /* Set up issue rate. */ + if (!(GET_CODE (SET_SRC (insn)) == MULT + && GET_MODE (SET_SRC (insn)) == SImode)) + return issue_rate; Is it correct that only SImode multiplies are checked against SImode multiplies? Can't we use DImode or HImode multiply (or other long-latency insns) to put them into the shadow of the first multiply insn? As proposed in [2], there are many other fine-tuning approaches proposed by the scheduler maintainer. OTOH, even the "big hammer" approach in the proposed patch makes things better, so it is the step in the right direction - and it is existing practice anyway. Under this rationale, I think that the patch should be committed to mainline. But please also consider proposed fine-tunings to refine the scheduling accuracy. So, OK for mainline, if there are no objections from other maintainers in next two days. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00964.html [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00806.html Thanks, Uros.
