search for: unnacceptable

Hello, I have two zoo objects, new and old, indexed by chron objects. Their structure is like this: (05/25/06 00:00:00) NA NA NA (05/25/06 00:02:00) 948.20 24.198 0 (05/25/06 00:04:00) 948.26 20.640 0 (05/25/06 00:06:00) 948.37 19.653 0 (05/25/06 00:08:00) 948.48 19.135 0 (05/25/06 00:10:00) 948.54 22.510 0 (05/25/06 00:12:00) 948.55 27.175 0 (05/25/06 00:14:00) 948.46

...it. There are other reasons that MI sched should be enabled now on x86 anyway: (1) The Selection DAG scheduler will be disabled as soon as I can implement a complete replacement. That should eliminate about 10% of codegen (llc) compile time. The Selection DAG scheduler has also long suffered from unnacceptable worst-cast compile time behavior and unresolved defects. We been chipping away at the problems, but some remain: PR15941, PR16365. This is a fundamentally bad place to perform scheduling. (2) The postRA scheduler will also be eliminated. That will eliminate another 10% of compile time for targets...

...e are other reasons that MI sched should be enabled now on x86 anyway: > > (1) The Selection DAG scheduler will be disabled as soon as I can implement a complete replacement. That should eliminate about 10% of codegen (llc) compile time. The Selection DAG scheduler has also long suffered from unnacceptable worst-cast compile time behavior and unresolved defects. We been chipping away at the problems, but some remain: PR15941, PR16365. This is a fundamentally bad place to perform scheduling. > > (2) The postRA scheduler will also be eliminated. That will eliminate another 10% of compile time for...

Hi Andy, We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. Here are our main findings: 1. The SD schedulers significantly impact the spill counts and the execution times for many