On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:13:18PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Thanks (to both of you). Interesting! Which of these unrelated changes
> does this come from?
Most of the changes I saw in code generation (not in spec, I didn't
look there, but in gcc) came down to this change to the cost for
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:08:42PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:51:25PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > - if (CONST_INT_P (XEXP (x, 1))
> > > - && satisfies_constraint_I (XEXP (x, 1)))
> > > + if (!speed)
> > > + /* A little more than one insn so that not
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:51:25PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:49:45AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Also use rs6000_cost only for speed.
>
> More directly: use something completely different for !speed, namely,
> code size.
Yes, that might be better.
>
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:49:45AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> Also use rs6000_cost only for speed.
More directly: use something completely different for !speed, namely,
code size.
> - if (CONST_INT_P (XEXP (x, 1))
> - && satisfies_constraint_I (XEXP (x, 1)))
> + if (!speed)
>
