> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Peryt, Sebastian <sebastian.pe...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > After r253934 gcc.target/i386/pr71321.c started to fail due to the wrong
> number of scan-assembler - 2 instead of 3. This patch is fixing that.
>
> Are you sure that there is no problem with the code generation? Did you
> investigate original PR for what it is testing and why it is testing for
> these 3
> LEAs?
Well, the problem is due to the change in cost model. This can be reverted by
simple modification:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h b/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
index c7ac70e..bb5b3e2 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/x86-tune-costs.h
@@ -2253,7 +2253,7 @@ struct processor_costs core_cost = {
COSTS_N_INSNS (4), /* DI */
COSTS_N_INSNS (4)}, /* other */
0, /* cost of multiply per each bit set */
- {COSTS_N_INSNS (8), /* cost of a divide/mod for QI */
+ {COSTS_N_INSNS (18), /* cost of a divide/mod for QI */
COSTS_N_INSNS (8), /* HI */
/* 8-11 */
COSTS_N_INSNS (11), /* SI */
The original PR was to make better code generation when dividing and modulo
small integers.
Ok, maybe I missed something. I'll get back to PR and see if any other solution
will be proposed
since for now I have nothing.
>
> > 2017-11-05 Sebastian Peryt <sebastian.pe...@intel.com>
> >
> > PR testsuite/82767
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr71321.c: Fix invalid testcase.
>
> There is nothing wrong with the testcase.
>
> > Is it ok for trunk?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sebastian
> >
