Re: How to define 2 bypasses for a single pair of insn_reservation

[Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>]

Ye, Joey wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov [mailto:vmakarov@redhat.com] wrote:
>   
> > It was supposed to have two latency definitions at most (one in 
> > define_insn_reservation and another one in define_bypass).  That time it 
> > seemed enough for all processors supported by GCC.  It also simplified 
> > semantics definition when two bypass conditions returns true for the 
> > same insn pair.
> >
> > If you really need more one bypass for insn pair, I could implement 
> > this.  Please, let me know.  In this case semantics of choosing latency 
> > time could be
> >
> > o time in first bypass occurred in pipeline description whose condition 
> > returns true
> > o time given in define_insn_reservation
> >     
> Maxim and I encountered the same problem, and I believe we won't be the last two unlucky guys. Can you please implement the extended semantics, which looks good to me?
>   
Ok.  I think that patch will be ready tomorrow or day after tomorrow.