On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 21/10/2019 16:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>There also is the insn_cost hook, which especially for RISC-like targets
> >>>is a lot easier to define.
> >>
> >>Easier, but not a complete replacement for rtx_costs, so
On 21/10/2019 16:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:46:53PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/10/2019 14:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:46:53PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 19/10/2019 14:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>
> >>The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
> >>describe the addition
On 19/10/2019 14:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
describe the addition with carry, this results in the instructions
appearing more expensive than they really a
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
> describe the addition with carry, this results in the instructions
> appearing more expensive than they really are, which occasionally can lead
> to poor
