Hi Kyrill, > diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index > b24143e32e2f100000f3b150f7ed0df4fabb3cc8..ecc7688b1db6309a4dd694a8e > 254e64abe14d7e3 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c > @@ -9258,6 +9258,8 @@ arm_rtx_costs_internal (rtx x, enum rtx_code > code, enum rtx_code outer_code, > *cost += COSTS_N_INSNS (speed_p ? extra_cost->mult[0].idiv : 0); > else > *cost = LIBCALL_COST (2); > + > + *cost += (code == DIV ? 1 : 0); > return false; /* All arguments must be in registers. */ > > > We usually try to avoid adjusting the costs in units other than > COSTS_N_INSNS. > Would adding COSTS_N_INSNS (1) here work? > If so, could you also add a comment here to describe why we're adjusting the > cost.
It would, I'm just slightly worried it might end up generating different code for DIV then. The reason I have used a unit smaller than COSTS_N_INSNS it so that it should have any real Impact on any other optimization as the cost is likely treated as an integer? It's only for things that Compare the costs values between signed and unsigned would the small unit make a difference. Since I think the compiler still has some hard coded cost limits somewhere it may be an issue, but I'm not 100% certain. I can make the change though. > > case MOD: > @@ -9280,7 +9282,7 @@ arm_rtx_costs_internal (rtx x, enum rtx_code > code, enum rtx_code outer_code, > > /* Fall-through. */ > case UMOD: > - *cost = LIBCALL_COST (2); > + *cost = LIBCALL_COST (2) + (code == MOD ? 1 : 0); > > Same here. > > Thanks, > Kyrill >
