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]

Re: [PATCH][expmed] Properly account for the cost and latency of shift+add ops when synthesizing mults


On 20 April 2015 at 16:12, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> wrote:

> Thanks,
> I could've sworn I had sent this version out a couple hours ago.
> My mail client has been playing up.
>
> Here it is with 6 tests. For the tests corresponding to f1/f3 in my
> example above I scan that we don't use the 'w1' reg.
>
> I'll give the AArch64 maintainers to comment on the tests for a day or two
> before committing.

Using scan-assembler-times is more robust than scan-assembler.
Otherwise, OK by me.
/Marcus

> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
> 2015-04-20  Kyrylo Tkachov  <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
>
>     * expmed.c: (synth_mult): Only assume overlapping
>     shift with previous steps in alg_sub_t_m2 case.
>
> 2015-04-20  Kyrylo Tkachov  <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
>
>     * gcc.target/aarch64/mult-synth_1.c: New test.
>     * gcc.target/aarch64/mult-synth_2.c: Likewise.
>     * gcc.target/aarch64/mult-synth_3.c: Likewise.
>     * gcc.target/aarch64/mult-synth_4.c: Likewise.
>     * gcc.target/aarch64/mult-synth_5.c: Likewise.
>     * gcc.target/aarch64/mult-synth_6.c: Likewise.
>>
>>
>> jeff
>>
>


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