On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM, bin.cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This patch refactors force_expr_to_var_cost and handles type conversion >>> along with other tree nodes. It is split from the patch posted at >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00546.html >>> Bootstrap and test with the patch lowering address expressions on >>> x86/x86_64/arm. Is it OK? >> >> ENOPATCH >> > Attached here. > I think it should be stated that this patch and the lowering one are > logically one because we rely on this patch to compute cost of lowered > address expression like "&arr + offset". > Moreover, address_cost on x86/x86_64 (is 1) are small, so this patch > has small impact on these two targets. While address_cost on arm (is > 9) is non-trivial, it has greater impact on ARM. The statement is in > line with various benchmark data.
Ok. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > bin > -- > Best Regards.
