Hi, Richard.

My criteria were very much (a).  In some cases though, a particular instruction could have variations that others in its natural group didn’t, when if seemed sensible to create a specific description for this instruction, even if its base form shares resources with other instructions in its group.

Do you have specific instances in mind?

Thank you,

-- 
Evandro Menezes



> Em 15 de mai. de 2023, à(s) 04:00, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> escreveu:
> 
> Evandro Menezes via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> This patch adds the attribute `type` to most SVE1 instructions, as in the other
>> instructions.
> 
> Thanks for doing this.
> 
> Could you say what criteria you used for picking the granularity?  Other
> maintainers might disagree, but personally I'd prefer to distinguish two
> instructions only if:
> 
> (a) a scheduling description really needs to distinguish them or
> (b) grouping them together would be very artificial (because they're
>    logically unrelated)
> 
> It's always possible to split types later if new scheduling descriptions
> require it.  Because of that, I don't think we should try to predict ahead
> of time what future scheduling descriptions will need.
> 
> Of course, this depends on having results that show that scheduling
> makes a significant difference on an SVE core.  I think one of the
> problems here is that, when a different scheduling model changes the
> performance of a particular test, it's difficult to tell whether
> the gain/loss is caused by the model being more/less accurate than
> the previous one, or if it's due to important "secondary" effects
> on register live ranges.  Instinctively, I'd have expected these
> secondary effects to dominate on OoO cores.
> 
> Richard


-- 
Evandro Menezes ◊ evandro@yahoo.com ◊ Austin, TX
Άγιος ο Θεός ⁂ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ ⁂ Sanctus Deus