On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 16:00 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/23/2009 03:27 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > > Do you mean if TARGET_ADDRES_COST (non-x86) is defined properly, > > this should be fixed? Or it requires extra patch? > > No, if TARGET_ADDRESS_COST was fixed for x86 (and of course defined > properly for your target), we could fix this very easily.
This problem appears to affect the ARM port as well - I can see this being useful for the ARM port and might force us to look at TARGET_ADDRESS_COST a little more carefully - so if you're happy to post the fwprop patch I'm happy to test for performance on the ARM and look at ADDRESS_COST carefully on the ARM. cheers Ramana > > Paolo
