Hi James,
The scheduling patch for vulcan was posted at the following link:-
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01205.html
We are working on the patch and addressed the comments for thunderx2t99.
>> I tried lowering the repeat expressions as so:
Done.
>>split off the AdvSIMD/FP model
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:43:52AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> The scheduling patch for vulcan was posted at the following link:-
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01205.html
>
> We are working on the patch and addressed the comments for thunderx2t99.
Great,
Hi James,
Thanks for reviewing the patch and comments.
>> I wonder whether the current modeling of:
>> (define_insn_reservation "thunderx2t99_asimd_load4_elts" 6
>> Actually benefits the schedule in a meaningful way, or if it just increases
Done. Removed the scheduler modeling for thunderx2t99_a
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 05:21:05AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch and comments.
>
> >> I wonder whether the current modeling of:
> >> (define_insn_reservation "thunderx2t99_asimd_load4_elts" 6
> >> Actually benefits the schedule in a meaningful w
