> My only worry would be asking for the length early in the RTL pipeline
> may not be as accurate, but it's supposed to work, so if you're
> comfortable with the end results, then OK.
>
Indeed, the length is not accurate, but the results seem slightly
better than using COST_RTX. Using INSN_COSTS se
On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 12:38 +0100, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
> TARGET_INSN_COST gives us a better control over the instruction costs
> than classical RTX_COSTS. A simple cost scheme is in place for the
> time being, when optimizing for size, the cost is given by the
> instruction length. When opti
TARGET_INSN_COST gives us a better control over the instruction costs
than classical RTX_COSTS. A simple cost scheme is in place for the
time being, when optimizing for size, the cost is given by the
instruction length. When optimizing for speed, the cost is 1 for any
recognized instruction, and 2
