> I think removing the is_inorder attribute should be ok. I added it > because I wanted to avoid having two matching insn reservations > defined since matching solely on the type attribute should also match > on all subsets as well (i.e. if eventually we add an insn reservation > checking for type "vlde" and tune "generic-ooo", any "vlde" insn > would map to both reservations) Ah, I see. Yes we should prevent that from happening and in case we have two (or more) similarly named reservations that would both match such an attribute would make sense I guess. My preference would just be to not just add it yet before we know what else we'll be needing. Chance is, not a whole lot will change until the release ;)
> For now I should just remove the is_inorder attribute. We will update > the latencies and add new reservations after we know what they should > be. Is that correct? Yes, that should work. Regards Robin
