This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] rtx_cost of SUBREG
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:41:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch] rtx_cost of SUBREG
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
> You could just as well ask is COST_N_INSNS(5) a reasonable default
> rtx_cost for multiplication or is COSTS_N_INSNS(7) a reasonable
> default for division. Of course, I know lots of platforms where
> multiplication isn't 5 times that of addition, but does that make
> it a bad default?
That's a little specious. Any reasonable target will override both costs so I
don't think we really care about the default in either case.
Anyway, I bootstrapped/regtested your patch on SPARC, SPARC64 and AMD64. The
only remaining regressions are on SPARC (2 but very likely the same) so I'm
very happy with it. :-)
Thanks again for your responsiveness.