On 11/12/20 10:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> I have coded up a proof of concept that implements our needs via a new >> target hook. The hook is passed a pair of dependent insns and returns if >> they are a fusion candidate. It is called while removing the forward >> dependencies of the just scheduled insn. If a dependent insn becomes >> available to schedule and it's a fusion candidate with the just >> scheduled insn, then the new code moves it to the ready list (if >> necessary) and marks it as SCHED_GROUP (piggy-backing on the existing >> code used by TARGET_SCHED_MACRO_FUSION) to make sure the fusion >> candidate will be scheduled next. Following is the scheduling part of >> the diff. Does this sound like a feasible approach? I welcome any >> comments/discussion. > It looks fairly reasonable to me. Do you plan on trying to take this > forward at all?
Due to other requirements where this approach did not work, we are pursuing a different approach of creating combine patterns for the target. -Pat
