[llvm-dev] [VLIW Scheduler] Itineraries vs. per operand scheduling

[Yatsina, Marina via llvm-dev]

Hi,

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.

I also found this thread from almost 2 years ago:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-April/098763.html

At that time it seemed the itineraries are a better choice, but is it still the case?
Also, in this thread Phil says:
"Some of the constraints that can be found in in-order micro architectures cannot be expressed in the per-operand scheduling model"
Does anybody have an example of such constraints that will be harder to model with per operand scheduling?

Thanks,
Marina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180204/3ef88d19/attachment-0001.html>