On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:36:55PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 04:17 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:55:15PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 04/20/2016 08:22 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
> > > > -/* Remove INSN from queue. */
> > > > +/* Remove INSN at idx from queue. */
> > > > +static void
> > > > +queue_remove (unsigned int q, unsigned int idx)
> > > > +{
> > > > + QUEUE_INDEX (insn_queue[q][idx]) = QUEUE_NOWHERE;
> > > > + insn_queue[q].ordered_remove (idx);
> > > > + q_size--;
> > >
> > > I think I'm nacking this one, sorry. I don't think ordered_removes in the
> > > scheduler queues are going to fly.
> >
> > So, we're going from a linear walk through a linked list to linear scan
> > of part of a vector and memcpy of the rest. That's certainly not great,
> > but the linked list walk doesn't seem great either. Is unordered_remove
> > here safe? Or do you have some other idea? I guess we could write a
> > forward_list.
>
> After looking at it for a bit, I think unordered_remove for the queues
> (leaving the ready list alone entirely) is probably alright. I think here in
Thanks for looking at that, I'll try it.
> particular but also for the other patches it would be good to run some tests
> that code generation is identical before and after.
I guess the usual tool for that is contrib/compare-all-tests? is there a
simpler one?
Trev
>
>
> Bernd
