On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:16:19PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 09:34:40AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:16:39PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Note that we already have insn_rtx_cost, and it returns a minimum cost
> > > for a SET, so register
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 09:34:40AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:16:39PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Note that we already have insn_rtx_cost, and it returns a minimum cost
> > for a SET, so register move insns get a cost of 1 insn. However,
> > despite insn_rtx_cos
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:16:39PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> Note that we already have insn_rtx_cost, and it returns a minimum cost
> for a SET, so register move insns get a cost of 1 insn. However,
> despite insn_rtx_cost starting life in combine.c, even combine doesn't
> use it in all whole ins
On 29 Jun 2015, at 16:46, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:28:39PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> Perhaps the best thing to do is to use the OUTER code to spot the
>> specific case where you've got a SET and return non-zero in that case.
>
> That's exactly the path I've been fo
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:28:39PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Perhaps the best thing to do is to use the OUTER code to spot the
> specific case where you've got a SET and return non-zero in that case.
That's exactly the path I've been following. It's not as easy as it
sounds..
First, some
