This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Test arm_tune_xscale, not arm_arch_xscale
- From: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:59:38 -0700 (MST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test arm_tune_xscale, not arm_arch_xscale
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 15:06, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > 2004-12-14 Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com>
> >
> > * combine.c (combine_validate_cost): Consider cost of
> > undobuf.other_insn rather than always allowing the recombination
> > if it is set.
> > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_xscale_rtx_costs): Increase cost of
> > COMPARE of MULT.
> > * config/arm/arm.md (mulsi3_compare0): Don't check
> > arm_arch_xscale.
> > (mulsi_compare0_scratch, mulsi3_addsi_compare0): Likewise.
> > (mulsi3addsi_compare0_scratch): Likewise.
>
> Looks sensible enough to me. I think this should be ok for 4.1,
> unless Roger raises an objection.
No objections from me. In fact, as described by Ian, this is technically
a performance regression for XScale, so I'm happy to approve the
improvements to combine.c for 4.0/mainline, if you feel the ARM backend
bits are suitable.
Roger
--