[llvm-dev] Is there a way to convert between SchedMachineModel and Itineraries?

[Anshuman Dasgupta via llvm-dev]

 > Bundling rules are actually quite simple. I think the only 
restriction that I have is not to bundle two branches together.

If that's the only restriction you want to implement, then you don't 
need to specify slot information in the DFA. You can add the branch 
check to <your-target>VLIWPacketizer.cpp. Look at 
HexagonVLIWPacketizer.cpp for examples on how to add checks during 
packetizing.

 > however when we extend it to more slots, the rules might get more 
complicated.

If the slot rules get complicated beyond the branch check, then you 
should consider using the DFA.

-Anshu

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation



On 11/9/2015 5:30 PM, Rail Shafigulin wrote:
> Anshu,
>
> Thanks for the reply
>
>     How complex are the bundling rules in your VLIW target? Is that
>     documented somewhere? The complexity will determine whether I'd
>     recommend using the DFA packetizer.
>
>
> Bundling rules are actually quite simple. I think the only restriction 
> that I have is not to bundle two branches together. As far as 
> documentation goes, this is a proprietary project and it is not in the 
> public domain, at least for now. The reason we wanted to use existing 
> packetizer is because we thought that there is no need to re-invent 
> the wheel. Why not use what is already there?
>
> Also given that I'm new to all of this (including VLIW architecture), 
> my boss told me to develop simple code just for 2 slots and later 
> we'll try to expand it. So when I say that bundling rules are quite 
> simple, what I mean is that they are quite simple for 2 slots, however 
> when we extend it to more slots, the rules might get more complicated.
>
> Thanks,
> R

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151110/ed726645/attachment.html>