On 04/02/16 09:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
Hi all,
As part of investigating the codegen effects of a fix for PR 65932 I found
we assign
too high a cost for the sign-extending multiply instruction SMULBB.
This is because we add the cos
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As part of investigating the codegen effects of a fix for PR 65932 I found
> we assign
> too high a cost for the sign-extending multiply instruction SMULBB.
> This is because we add the cost of a multiply-extend but then also rec
Hi Kyrill,
> 2016-01-22 Kyrylo Tkachov
>
> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_new_rtx_costs, MULT case): Properly extract
> the operands of the SIGN_EXTENDs from a SMUL[TB][TB] rtx.
Approved - please apply.
Cheers
Nick
Hi all,
As part of investigating the codegen effects of a fix for PR 65932 I found we
assign
too high a cost for the sign-extending multiply instruction SMULBB.
This is because we add the cost of a multiply-extend but then also recurse into
the
SIGN_EXTEND sub-expressions rather than the regist
