This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add X86_TUNE_AVOID_LEA_FOR_ADDR
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:55:16 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add X86_TUNE_AVOID_LEA_FOR_ADDR
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140117141937 dot GA1174 at intel dot com> <CAFULd4YSdyZ4A0sM_G3eUc1A_P5R6yN4BwaFYw=R9xvWhdYh6g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoMwEQ=nKPXvOCVvVrp4+vP4Qx6Mf=opW65Ky=8ZW7k8w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4bX3Ci+6OzQTs61wJ2p7RnhWuyyQZag_72BZofPyyJ39g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOpK=hxKN_QuzOdJKx4VLSKte_c7mS+paJ5b0-uKuToeEA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4aM4r4er4L3iLVdkF4btsALKxRh2qA8Wa3fY4bjxdoQ=g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqCwyk=3A5TdYToOFCxvHOWT0Ovm6de=KeoVe4dUX6Smw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW: There are some ix86_tune == XXX conditions scattered throughout
>>>> LEA handling code. Can these be substituted with appropriate TARGET_*
>>>> defines?
>>>
>>> I have been looking at them closely to check their impacts on
>>> both Haswell and Silvermont. I am planning to keep
>>> the simple LEA -> ADD transformation, but avoid
>>> the complex LEA -> ADD/MOV/SHL transformation.
>>
>> No, I didn't talk about functional change, but about equivalent
>> TARGET_* define that can be used instead of "(ix86_tune ==
>> PROCESSOR_SILVERMONT) || (ix86_tune == PROCESSOR_INTEL)".
>>
>> Uros.
>
> Something like
>
> #define TARGET_INTEL_SILVERMONT \
> (ix86_tune == PROCESSOR_SILVERMONT || ix86_tune == PROCESSOR_INTEL)
>
>
I see what I meant. I will submit a patch.
--
H.J.