Ahh I see, that makes a lot more sense. I’d want to change the
TARGET_SCHED_ADJUST_PRIORITY hook?
Also, would it still make sense to change the costs of expensive loads even
during instruction selection to give opportunities for optimizations like
rematerialization? I’m thinking that it could b
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:28 PM Sasha Krassovsky wrote:
> @Jim I saw you were from SiFive - I noticed that modifying the costs for
> integer multiplies in the riscv_tune_info structs didn’t affect the generated
> code. Could this be why?
rtx_costs is used for instruction selection. For instanc
Thanks for your replies!
I looked into the address spaces, and I think it’s easier to inform the RTX
costs just using the attribute, but it was a good suggestion.
Also, rtx_costs in rtlanal.c indeed seems to be the source of the problem. The
SET expression does not look at the costs of its oper
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 4:28 PM Sasha Krassovsky via Gcc
wrote:
> I’m currently modifying the RISC-V backend for a manycore processor where
> each core is connected over a network. Each core has a local scratchpad
> memory, but can also read and write other cores’ scratchpads. I’d like to add
>
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 04:27:07PM -0700, Sasha Krassovsky via Gcc wrote:
> However, in the following example, the load does get the cost applied to it
> but the store to B does not.
>
> void bar(__attribute__((remote(5)) int *a, int *b)
> {
> if(*A > 5)
> *A = 10;
> *B = *A;
> }
Hello!
I’m currently modifying the RISC-V backend for a manycore processor where each
core is connected over a network. Each core has a local scratchpad memory, but
can also read and write other cores’ scratchpads. I’d like to add an attribute
to give a hint to the optimizer about which loads w
