Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
>
> For most processors it's not important to get all costs exactly correct.
> The compiler uses the costs in a relatively brute force manner. If
> there is only one way to do some operation, then its cost is irrelevant.
> Co
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> So, from what I understand, it seems that if there is machine
> independent code using COSTS_N_INSNS, I should be using it otherwise
> relative comparisons just don't make sense.
>
> However, from what I can see we have cost hooks for:
> - register mov
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
>
>> Moreover, is there a reason for the existence of COST_N_INSNS(x) and why
>> this multiplies x by 4? Is 4 just a special number? Any reason on why I
>> should be using COST_N_INSNS instead of just assigning *total (of
>> t
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> I would like some clarification on the meaning of RTX Costs.
> When optimising for speed I assume they estimate the time at which the
> final generated code is going to take to execute for each rtx.
> When optimising for size it is the estimated number
Hello,
I would like some clarification on the meaning of RTX Costs.
When optimising for speed I assume they estimate the time at which the
final generated code is going to take to execute for each rtx.
When optimising for size it is the estimated number of words that each
rtx will generate in the
