Hi Dave,
> This change is also fine.
>
> The gcc.target/hppa/shadd-2.c test now fails because there are two
additional sh1add instructions.
> However, the total number of instructions is the same as before.
Just to be on the safe side, I took a deeper look into this.
We're now generating a slightly different sequence for multiply by 87.
Before:
zdep %r28,28,29,%r20 ; r20 = r28*8
ldo RR'default_target_regs-$global$(%r1),%r19
sub %r20,%r28,%r20 ; r20 = r28*7
sh2addl %r20,%r28,%r20 ; r20 = r28*29
sh2addl %r20,%r19,%r19 ; r20 = addr+r28*116
sub %r19,%r20,%r19 ; r20 = addr+r28*87
After:
sh2addl %r28,%r28,%r19 ; r19 = r28*5
ldo RR'default_target_regs-$global$(%r1),%r1
sh2addl %r19,%r28,%r19 ; r19 = r28*21
sh1addl %r19,%r28,%r19 ; r19 = r28*43
sh1addl %r19,%r28,%r19 ; r19 = r28*87
addl %r1,%r19,%r1 ; r1 = addr+r28*87
As you point out, both sequences have exactly the same length and rtx_costs.
I suspect the middle-end has a minor preference for simple shifts and adds.
If shadd-2.c is there to check we make use of sh?add instructions, then
we're
making even more use of them now.
I agree it's reasonable to increase the scan-assembler-times count for this
test.
Cheers,
Roger
--
