Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "schedclasses".
Did you mean:
schedclass
2017 Sep 22
2
SchedClasses
Hi all,
I am looking at the scheduling model of the ThunderX2. I am trying to figure out the cost of the LDADDALX instruction. The following program’s output is:
name LDADDALX; class 872
microops 65535
I would have assumed that the microops are less than 20. The ThunderX2 has a detailed cost model for LSE. Could somebody tell me what I am doing wrong?
Cheers,
Tom
#define GET_REGINFO_ENUM
2017 Sep 29
0
SchedClasses
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Thorsten Schütt via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am looking at the scheduling model of the ThunderX2. I am trying to figure out the cost of the LDADDALX instruction. The following program’s output is:
> name LDADDALX; class 872
> microops 65535
> I would have assumed that the microops are less than
2017 Sep 30
1
SchedClasses
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Andrew Trick via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Thorsten Schütt via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > #define GET_REGINFO_ENUM
> > #include "AArch64GenRegisterInfo.inc"
> >
> > #define GET_INSTRINFO_ENUM
>
2018 May 10
2
[RFC] MC support for variant scheduling classes.
Hi all,
The goal of this RFC is to make information related to variant scheduling
classes accessible at MC level. This would help tools like llvm-mca
understand/resolve variant scheduling classes.
To achieve this goal, I plan to introduce a new class of scheduling
predicates
named MCSchedPredicate. An MCSchedPredicate allows the definition of boolean
expressions with a well-known semantic, that
2012 Apr 19
0
[LLVMdev] Target Dependent Hexagon Packetizer patch
Sure I will split it and put it in two patches.
Give me few hours. I need to test those patches.
Sirish
On 4/19/2012 8:40 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:18:05PM -0500, Sirish Pande wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a patch for Hexagon Packetizer for review. This patch does
>> not yield any warnings.
>>
> Would it be possible to split this