[llvm-bugs] [Bug 32216] New: [X86] Better testing of schedule model instruction latencies/throughputs
llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org
Fri Mar 10 06:02:30 PST 2017
Bug ID: 32216
Summary: [X86] Better testing of schedule model instruction
OS: Windows NT
Component: Backend: X86
Assignee: unassignedbugs at nondot.org
Reporter: llvm-dev at redking.me.uk
CC: andrew.v.tischenko at gmail.com, craig.topper at gmail.com,
davide at freebsd.org, filcab at gmail.com,
llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org, simon.f.whittaker at gmail.com,
spatel+llvm at rotateright.com
We don't currently do a very good job of testing the various costs of
instructions based on the specific schedule model used (generic, atom,
sandybridge, haswell, silvermont, jaguar).
To help improve this it would be useful to have an option to to output assembly
comments that indicate latency/throughput etc. of each instruction. We should
then create a set of test files that cover a decent range of instructions.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-bugs