https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #10 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch-def.cc > > b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch-def.cc > > index e8c129ce643..f27284cb20a 100644 > > --- a/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch-def.cc > > +++ b/gcc/config/loongarch/loongarch-def.cc > > @@ -111,11 +111,7 @@ loongarch_rtx_cost_data::loongarch_rtx_cost_data () > > tune targets (i.e. -mtune=native while PRID does not correspond to > > any known "-mtune" type). */ > > array_tune<loongarch_rtx_cost_data> loongarch_cpu_rtx_cost_data = > > - array_tune<loongarch_rtx_cost_data> () > > - .set (CPU_LA664, > > - loongarch_rtx_cost_data () > > - .movcf2gr_ (COSTS_N_INSNS (1)) > > - .movgr2cf_ (COSTS_N_INSNS (1))); > > + array_tune<loongarch_rtx_cost_data> (); > > But why? Isn't movcf2gr and movgr2cf one-cycle on LA664? I think this is weird too. I'm still testing other situations, and I'll find out the reason after the testing is completed.
