On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:33:50 PST (-0800), Jim Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:21 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@sifive.com> wrote:
Jim, would you be opposed to something like this?
This looks OK to me.
OK, thanks. I'll send some patches around :)
+ builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_load_cost",
+ riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access
? 1024 : 1);
+ builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_store_cost",
+ riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access
? 1024 : 1);
It would be nice to have a better way to compute these values, maybe
an extra field in the tune structure, but we can always worry about
that later when we need it.
I agree. I just went and designed the external interface first and hid the
ugliness here. The internal interfaces are easier to change :)
