Hi Richard,
The problem was with adjusting to be more expansive the load imm + mul sequence
and
the shift + add sequence were the smake cost when optimizing for size so the
code in expmed.c
choose the MUL.
I also considered this version also I couldn't decide which was better just
went with the other
version on a toss of a coin.
I submit again with mips target testcase which use scan assember technique to
check that
we use the shift+add/sub sequence.
A simple testcase compiled with -Os
int foo(int x)
{
return x * 17;
}
will demonstrate that we currently use "LI + MUL" and after the patch we will
use "SLL + ADDU".
Gtraham
