[PATCH] D30941: Better testing of schedule model instruction latencies/throughputs

[Simon Pilgrim via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

RKSimon added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30941#702657, @hfinkel wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30941#702652, @avt77 wrote:
>
> > The implementation was moved to target independent area and all Hal's comments were applied. I did not do anything with Throughput: it will be done in the patch.
>
>
> Do you mean that the throughput will be done in a follow-up patch (or a later revision of this one)? Either is fine with me, although if we're going to add more than latencies we might pick a different name. More later...


If possible please can we use the term 'print schedule' now so that future improvements (throughput, etc.) make sense


https://reviews.llvm.org/D30941