Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nils...@axis.com> writes: >> From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> >> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:14:49 +0200 > >> Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nils...@axis.com> writes: >> >> From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> >> >> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:46:38 +0200 >> > >> >> To repeat: as things stand, very few targets define proper rtx costs >> >> for SET. >> > >> > IMHO it's wrong to start blaming targets when rtx_cost doesn't >> > take the mode in account in the first place, for the default >> > cost. (Well, except for the modes-tieable subreg special-case.) >> > The targets where an operation in N * word_mode costs no more >> > than one in word_mode, if there even is one, is a minority, >> > let's adjust the defaults to that. >> >> I'll pass on approving or disapproving this patch, > > Here's an update. Could you please reconsider? I have to > appeal to your sense of fairness: after all you were involved in > the breaking patch.
Sorry, but no. The new version still seems rather arbitrary to me. As before though, I won't try to stop anyone else from approving it. Richard
