Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:41:19AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> > How much churn would it be to pass down a mode alongside the operands >> > in expand_binop? Can't find it right now but didn't we introduce >> > some rtx_with_mode pair-like stuff somewhen? >> >> We have rtx_mode_t for that. But there are 240+ calls to expand_binop, >> and even if we add an overload that will transform it, unless we forcefully >> inline it wouldn't that slow down all the spots a little bit? >> The thing is, for the vast majority of binary ops we don't need the operand >> modes, it is mainly comparisons, second arg of shifts/rotates and this >> widening case. > > Ok, so maybe split expand_binop then to the class of cases where we do > need the mode and a class where we don't then? > > We don't have to use rtx_mode_t we can just pass two arguments. Not > sure what is more convenient to use.
FWIW, rtx_mode_t was only really added so that we have a single blob for wi:: calls (with the hope that it would eventually be replaced with just the rtx once CONST_INTs have a mode). I think it'd be more consistent to use separate arguments for other cases. Thanks, Richard > Anyway, this doesn't have to happen in stage3, just as a general > note on how I believe we changed things in other places. Richard S. > may remember more here. > > Richard.
