Appeal No. 96-1588
Application 08/036,947
b) generating a plurality of unassigned schedule slots based
on said schedule size, the number of unassigned schedule slots
generated being a function of said schedule size;
c) selecting an instruction of said basic block using a
plurality of priority functions, said priority functions
distinguishing squeezed instructions from non-squeezed
instructions of said basic block, and factoring said distinction
into their priority evaluations, said squeezed instructions being
instructions that cannot be issued in parallel whereas said non-
squeezed instructions are instructions that can be issued in
parallel;
d) assigning said selected instruction to one of said
unassigned schedule slots without violating resource constraints
of said target machine and precedence constraints of said[2]
instructions of said basic block;
e) repeating said steps c) through d) until all instructions
of said basic block have been scheduled.
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as unpatentable for obviousness over the following
reference:
Rasbold et al. (Rasbold) 5,202,975 April 13, 1993
Because appellant treats all of the appealed claims as
standing or falling together (Brief at 4), we will address only
claim 1.
Rasbold discloses a software compiler which rearranges the
order of a basic block of instructions in order to reduce the
2We are construing "said target machine" as a reference to
the "targeted computer" recited in the preamble.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007