Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix costing of sign-extending load in rtx costs

On 27/04/16 15:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that > sign-extending loads get a higher cost than they should in the arm backend. > The problem is that when handling a sign-extend of a MEM we add the cost > of the load_

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix costing of sign-extending load in rtx costs

Ping. Thanks, Kyrill On 11/05/16 10:00, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01655.html Thanks, Kyrill On 27/04/16 15:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that sign-extending loads get a

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix costing of sign-extending load in rtx costs

Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01655.html Thanks, Kyrill On 27/04/16 15:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that sign-extending loads get a higher cost than they should in the arm backend. The problem is

[PATCH][ARM] Fix costing of sign-extending load in rtx costs

Hi all, Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that sign-extending loads get a higher cost than they should in the arm backend. The problem is that when handling a sign-extend of a MEM we add the cost of the load_sign_extend cost field and then recursively add the