Re: RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-24 Thread Joern Rennecke
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:40:52PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > Sounds like a perfect use for the new feature attribute-enabled; > skipping alternatives depending on TARGET_... See md.texi > "@subsection Disable insn alternatives using the @code{enabled} > attribute". Thanks for the pointer

Re: RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-24 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Moreover, the .md file also doesn't get more readable if I replace > a three character constraint string with a multiword iterator invocation... > for something like eight out of 14 alternatives for some instructions. Um yeah, there is that... > FWIW,

Re: RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-24 Thread Joern Rennecke
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 07:06:29AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > You could use iterators... except you'd probably want to iterate > over text, not RTX codes or machine modes. Maybe a good reason > to introduce generalized (or maybe just text) iterators! > > (define_iterator i [foo bar]) > (d

Re: RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-24 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Joern Rennecke wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > > I think you could achieve the same result by writing multiple > > define_insn patterns and using the instruction predicate. > > Yes, I could. But that would quadruple my machine

Re: RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-17 Thread Joern Rennecke
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > I think you could achieve the same result by writing multiple > define_insn patterns and using the instruction predicate. Yes, I could. But that would quadruple my machine description, which is already 169 KB, and it would mak

Re: RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-17 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Joern Rennecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ARCompact has three-address instructions, but it has a number of > shorter two-address instruction codes. > > When optimizing or speed, I think it would generally be best to > choose the three-address alternatives for input reloads, since this > allows

RFC: machine specific alternative cost modifier

2008-10-17 Thread Joern Rennecke
ARCompact has three-address instructions, but it has a number of shorter two-address instruction codes. When optimizing or speed, I think it would generally be best to choose the three-address alternatives for input reloads, since this allows more reload inheritance. OTOH, when optimizing for siz