Re: 2nd try for patch for automaton based pipeline hazard recognizer (part #1)

[law at redhat dot com]

  In message <3B2E6404.C767C650@redhat.com>you write:
  >   Yes, it will.  That is exactly the case when
  > USE_AUTOMATON_PIPELINE_INTERFACE should be used.  The user should define
  > the macro whose value is nonzero if the current target submodel pipeline
  > characteristics are described by automaton.
OK.  I misunderstood how some of this code works.


  >  
  > > And while I haven't looked at the code in detail, the first thing that ju
  > mps
  > > out to me is the amazing number of #ifdefs for old vs new model (which
  > > indicates to me that we do not automatically select which model to use ba
  > sed
  > > on what chip we're compiling for).
  > > 
  > 
  >   If there is define_insn_reservation, by default automaton based
  > scheduler is used.  USE_AUTOMATON_PIPELINE_INTERFACE should be defined
  > if there are automaton based description (for one target submodel) *and*
  > old descriptions (for another submodel).  If there is only old pipeline
  > description, USE_AUTOMATON_PIPELINE_INTERFACE also can be undefined.  So
  > the patch is safe, we can rewrite descriptions step by step.
You're missing my point.  The mess of #ifdefs aren't going to be acceptable.
They make code far too ugly to contemplate integrating these patches.


jeff