[llvm-dev] [VLIW Scheduler] Itineraries vs. per operand scheduling
陳韋任 via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 8 06:49:22 PST 2018
2018-02-08 13:32 GMT+08:00 Andrew Trick via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Yatsina, Marina via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> What is the best way to model a scheduler for a VLIW in-order architecture?
> I’ve looked at the Hexagon and R600 architectures and they are using
> itineraries. I wanted to understand the benefit in using itineraries over
> the per operand scheduling.
> Do you have time to give comment on why Hexagon still use itineraries,
rather than switching to per operand scheduling like ARM does? I really
like to hear your opinion.
Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev