[ARM] [2/2] Fix DImode addressing

[Jie Zhang]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gcc-arm-fix-dimode-mem-index-6.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 2928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20101225/ccf5a1fa/attachment.bin>