[PATCH RFC]Pair load store instructions using a generic scheduling fusion pass

[Bin.Cheng]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:28 PM, James Greenhalgh
<james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:43:12AM +0000, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 11/05/14 02:30, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> >> Thanks very much for reviewing.  I refined the patch according to your
>> >> comments.  Also made two small changes: a)  skip breaking dependency
>> >> between memory access and the corresponding base-reg modifying
>> >> instruction.  This feature doesn't help load/store pair that much and
>> >> only increases compilation time.  b) a minor bug fix in arm backend
>> >> hook when calculating priority for memory accesses with minus offset.
>> >>
>> >> I am running bootstrap/test against latest trunk, and will adapt
>> >> ChangeLog once get approved generally.  So how about this one?
>> >
>> > OK for the trunk.  Thanks for your patience.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing.  For the record, attached patch is committed.
>> The only update is I disabled the pass if peephole2 isn't in effect
>> because it relies on peephole2 to do real fusion work.
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> The documentation for TARGET_SCHED_FUSION_PRIORITY doesn't look
> right to me (see: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Scheduling.html ).
>
> I think you'll need to wrap your examples in something like @smallexample
> tags if you want to maintain their formatting.
>
Hi James,
Thanks very much for reporting this, will fix it.

Thanks,
bin