This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

PING [ARM] [2/2] Fix DImode addressing

From: Jie Zhang <jie at codesourcery dot com>
To: ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:11:19 +0800
Subject: PING [ARM] [2/2] Fix DImode addressing
References: <4D119DA9.4060002@codesourcery.com> <1293109120.30979.32.camel@e102325-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <4D134EBE.9010307@codesourcery.com> <1293121717.9377.4.camel@e102325-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <4D1556DB.5020605@codesourcery.com>

PING.

On 12/25/2010 10:28 AM, Jie Zhang wrote:

On 12/24/2010 12:28 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:

+ if ((low != -8&& low != -4&& low != 0&& low != 4)
+ || !multiple_operation_profitable_p (false, 2, val))
should be moved into multiple_operation_profitable_p.


Since the code is identical - why not move it in there today or is that
what you are saying ? Ideally I think it would be better to move
this in
as a flag into the costs structure per core .

I'm not sure if it's good to move it into
multiple_operation_profitable_p since it's also called from some places.
Moving into it but not affecting other code needs more time thinking.
For now I just try to keep my patch as simple as possible to ease code
review. We can move it into multiple_operation_profitable_p later when
multiple_operation_profitable_p will be changed largely.


Then I would suggest that you add a comment or a FIXME: that marks this
as something that has to be looked at when we look at tuning
multiple_operation_profitable_p .

Here is the updated patch with the comments added.

Regards,


--
Jie Zhang

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]