On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:49:47AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 03:28:52PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
*ping ^2* Thanks, James > > > > On 12/06/17 14:53, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >In the AArch64 backend and scheduling models there is some confusion as to > > >what the load1/load2 etc. scheduling types refer to. This leads to us using > > >load1/load2 in two contexts - for a variety of 32-bit, 64-bit and 128-bit > > >loads in AArch32 and 128-bit loads in AArch64. That leads to an undesirable > > >confusion in scheduling. > > > > > >Fixing it is easy, but mechanical and boring. Essentially, > > > > > > s/load1/load_4/ > > > s/load2/load_8/ > > > s/load3/load_12/ > > > s/load4/load_16/ > > > s/store1/store_4/ > > > s/store2/store_8/ > > > s/store3/store_12/ > > > s/store4/store_16/ > > > > So the number now is the number of bytes being loaded? > > > > >Across all sorts of pipeline models, and the two backends. > > > > > >I have intentionally not modified any of the patterns which now look > > >obviously > > >incorrect. I'll be doing a second pass over the AArch64 back-end in patch > > >2/2 which will fix these bugs. The AArch32 back-end looked to me to get > > >this > > >correct. > > > > > >Bootstrapped on AArch64 and ARM without issue - there's no functional > > >change here. > > > > > >OK? > > > > Ok from an arm perspective. > > *Ping* for the AArch64 maintainers.
