> Vladimir, > > No problem at all! I am currently working on the much harder problem of > trace scheduling (again, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no > optimal solution for it). That's why I need to get actual traces from a > production compiler to experimentally evaluate my algorithm. It looks > that what I need to do is examine the trace formation code in gcc and see > if I can eliminate the tail duplication step. This should be fairly easy - see function find_trace that given a seed BB will return you fully grown trace. The algorithm match pretty closely what Impact folks describe in their papers. Honza > > Thank you! > > -Ghassan > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > > > Ghassan Shobaki wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I have previously studied superblock scheduling by importing > > >> superblock DAGs from gcc and feeding them into my scheduler (I have > > >> published my results at Micro in case you are interested: > > >> http://www.microarch.org/micro37/papers/25_Shobaki-Superblock.pdf) > > >> > > > Thanks for the article, Ghassan. But I don't think this is the first > > > optimal algorithm as you wrote in your introdauction. I implemented > > > an analogous approach about seven years ago. And I am sure I am not > > > the first. > > > > > Ghassan, my appologies. I've read your article. What I wrote was about > > optimal basic blocks scheduling. I've not seen articles about optimal > > scheduling beyond basic blocks. So most probably your article is really > > the first published work about optimal scheduling of superblocks. > > > > My appologies again. > > > > Vlad > > > >
