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

[陳韋任 via llvm-dev]

Hi Krzysztof,

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:
>
> 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.
>
> ​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.

Thanks.​ :-)

-- 
Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)
Homepage: https://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180208/92667e0c/attachment.html>