http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|arm |arm-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2013-11-27
Known to work| |4.8.2
Version|4.9.0 |unknown
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
gnu.org
Summary|[4.9 Regression][ARM] |[ARM] regression on
|regression on |unsigned-extend-2.c
|unsigned-extend-2.c |
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail| |4.9.0
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking a bit into it, it seems that I wrote the A15 costs without considering
that they're supposed to represent the latency cost minus 1 (since every insn
has an implicit cost of COSTS_N_INSNS (1) already). Those were the early days
of the new costs tables. If I adjust the costs for the A15 for this, it gives
the old sequence again.
Regardless of whether this new sequence is good or not, the A15 costs should be
fixed. I have a patch in testing
