On 26.05.2011 17:32, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> On 25.05.2011 19:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 05/25/2011 03:29 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>>> I think the hook is a better idea than the attribute because nobody will
>>> care to mark all offending insns with an attribute.
>>
>> I don't know. IIRC when I looked at sh or whatever the broken port was,
>> it was only two insns - there would still be some value in being able to
>> assert that all other insns have a reservation.
> OK, I will take a look on x86-64 and will get back with more information.
>
> Andrey
So, I have made an attempt to bootstrap on x86-64 with the extra assert in 
selective scheduling that assumes the DFA state always changes when issuing 
a recog_memoized >=0 insn (patch attached).  Indeed, there are just a few 
general insns that don't have proper reservations.  However, it was a 
surprise to me to see that almost any insn with SSE registers fails this 
assert and thus does not get properly scheduled.

Overall, the work on fixing those seems doable, it took just a day to get 
the compiler bootstrapped (of course, the testsuite may bring much more 
issues).  So, if there is an agreement on marking a few offending insns 
with the new attribute, we can proceed with the help of somebody from the 
x86 land on fixing those and researching for other targets.

Andrey

>
>>
>>
>> Bernd