From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-121639-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6613 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2005 21:20:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6603 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2005 21:20:08 -0000
Received: from x93.infopact.nl (HELO x93.infopact.nl) (212.29.160.93)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:20:08 +0000
Received: from 63-66-dsl.ipact.nl (63-66-dsl.ipact.nl [84.35.66.63])
	by x93.infopact.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jADLK4Q1010665;
	Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:20:04 +0100
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: law@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:20:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
References: <200511132120.14753.stevenb@suse.de> <1131915750.3728.348.camel@slowpoke>
In-Reply-To: <1131915750.3728.348.camel@slowpoke>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200511132220.21202.stevenb@suse.de>
X-Spam-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2

On Sunday 13 November 2005 22:02, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> No great insights on how to make dbr_schedule CFG aware -- just
> remember that a filled delay slot can represent 3 different cases:
>
>   1. An extension of the block containing the sequence.
>
>   2. An extension of the block at the target of a branch.
>
>   3. An extension of the fall-thru block.
>
>   4. An entirely new basic block on its own.

When can option 4 happen??

Gr.
Steven