Summary:
The logic of dispatch remains the same, but now DispatchUnit is a Stage (DispatchStage).
This change has the benefit of simplifying the backend runCycle() code.
The same logic applies, but it belongs to different components now. This is just a start,
eventually we will need to remove the call to the DispatchStage in Scheduler.cpp, but
that will be a separate patch. This change is mostly a renaming and moving of existing logic.
This change also encouraged me to remove the Subtarget (STI) member from the
Backend class. That member was used to initialize the other members of Backend
and to eventually call DispatchUnit::dispatch(). Now that we have Stages, we
can eliminate this by instantiating the DispatchStage with everything it needs
at the time of construction (e.g., Subtarget). That change allows us to call
DispatchStage::execute(IR) as we expect to call execute() for all other stages.
Once we add the Stage list (D46907) we can more cleanly call preExecute() on
all of the stages, DispatchStage, will probably wrap cycleEvent() in that
case.
Made some formatting and minor cleanups to README.txt. Some of the text
was re-flowed to stay within 80 cols.
Reviewers: andreadb, courbet, RKSimon
Reviewed By: andreadb, courbet
Subscribers: mgorny, javed.absar, tschuett, gbedwell, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46983
llvm-svn: 332652
Strictly speaking, this is not necessary for .cpp files. However, other .cpp
files from this same tool have it. This also matches what we do in other tools.
llvm-svn: 332334
Summary:
This patch eliminates many places where we originally needed to pass index
values to represent an instruction. The index is still used as a key, in various parts of
MCA. I'm not comfortable eliminating the index just yet. By burying the index in
the instruction, we can avoid exposing that value in many places.
Eventually, we should consider removing the Instructions list in the Backend
all together, it's only used to hold and reclaim the memory for the allocated
Instruction instances. Instead we could pass around a smart pointer. But that's
a separate discussion/patch.
Reviewers: andreadb, courbet, RKSimon
Reviewed By: andreadb
Subscribers: javed.absar, tschuett, gbedwell, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46367
llvm-svn: 331660
The logic remains the same. Eventually, I see the RCU acting as its own separate stage in the instruction pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46331
llvm-svn: 331316
Matt Davis