llvm dev - Nov 2015 - DFAPacketizer assert failure

> Does the instruction that is being added have an itinerary associated with
> it?
>
> You are right, I don't know how I missed it. It is the CFI instruction.
I
don't remember giving it any itinerary.

> I'm not sure what you mean when you say that your scheduler description
is
> the same as for Hexagon or R600.  Those two are very different and whatever
> you have, it cannot be the same as both of them.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. I should have said that my description is similar
to Hexagon.
>
>
Thanks for the help,

R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151116/e3498115/attachment.html>

How come scheduling worked without giving a description to the CFI
instruction but packetization failed?

R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151116/794a5604/attachment.html>

On 11/16/2015 3:34 PM, Rail Shafigulin wrote:
> How come scheduling worked without giving a description to the CFI
> instruction but packetization failed?
The scheduler probably didn't care about the information that caused the 
assertion in the packetizer.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation