Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, David Given wrote:
> Michael Matz wrote:
> [...]
> > As you didn't adjust any cost I would guess the high value comes from the
> > default implementation of address_cost, which simply uses arithmetic cost,
> > and the MULT in there is quite expensive by default.
> >
>
Michael Matz wrote:
[...]
> As you didn't adjust any cost I would guess the high value comes from the
> default implementation of address_cost, which simply uses arithmetic cost,
> and the MULT in there is quite expensive by default.
>
> See TARGET_ADDRESS_COST in several ports.
Oddly, TARGET_A
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, David Given wrote:
> Trying 8, 9 -> 10:
> Successfully matched this instruction:
> (set (reg:SI 47 [ *_5 ])
> (mem:SI (plus:SI (mult:SI (reg/v:SI 43 [ b ])
> (const_int 4 [0x4]))
> (reg:SI 0 r0 [ a ])) [2 *_5+0 S4 A32]))
> rejecting combinat
2013/7/9, David Given :
> I'm working on a gcc backend for an architecture. The architecture has
> instructions for indexed array access; so, ld r0, (r1, r2) is equivalent
> to r0 = r1[r2] where r1 is a int32_t*.
>
> I'm representing this in the .md file with the following pattern:
>
> (define_insn
On 9 July 2013 11:02, David Given wrote:
> Right now all the cost macros are left as the default, which is probably
> the root of the problem; but I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head
> around them. In the interest of actually getting something to work, are
> there any ways of using a simpl
I'm working on a gcc backend for an architecture. The architecture has
instructions for indexed array access; so, ld r0, (r1, r2) is equivalent
to r0 = r1[r2] where r1 is a int32_t*.
I'm representing this in the .md file with the following pattern:
(define_insn "*si_load_indexed"
[
(set
