> > > This to me feels like the wrong approach as it feels like you are assuming > > INSN_COST is latency in some way ? Surely, we shouldn't be introducing > > INSN_COST based stuff into the scheduler. > > > > Have you investigated using TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_COST (IIRC, look for the > > right name in the internals documents) and such hooks that come from the > > scheduler rather than trying to massage INSN_COST into the target > > independent parts of the scheduler ? > > > > In the context of haifa-sched.c, INSN_COST is the latency cost. > It is not the rtx_cost of the insn, as used by combine and others.
Ah, I was conflating rtx_cost with INSN_COST, sorry about the noise. Ramana > So this approach looks reasonable to me (though I haven't done a deep review). > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > > Ramana > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Vlad > > > > > > gcc/ > > > Changelog for gcc/Changelog > > > 2018-09-11 Vlad Lazar <vlad.la...@arm.com> > > > > > > * haifa-sched.c (rank_for_schedule): Schedule by INSN_COST. > > > (rfs_decision): New scheduling decision. > > > >
