[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 --- Comment #5 from Sinan --- (In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #3) > > I think one solution is to change the cost model of such complex > > instructions to the sum of the cost for each part. E.g. > > cost for shNadd = COSTS_N_INSNS (SINGLE

[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 --- Comment #4 from Sinan --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > sllia4,a2,3 > sh3add a5,a2,a0 > > vs > sllia2,a2,3 > add a5,a0,a2 > > I think the first one is better really because you have

[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 Kito Cheng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- sllia4,a2,3 sh3add a5,a2,a0 vs sllia2,a2,3 add a5,a0,a2 I think the first one is better really because you have two indepedent instructions and can be issued at

[Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108764 Sinan changed: What|Removed |Added Target||riscv --- Comment #1 from Sinan --- In the giv