[PATCH] Add X86_TUNE_AVOID_LEA_FOR_ADDR

H.J. Lu hjl.tools@gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 16:55:00 GMT 2014


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.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list