On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:46 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> Ping^3.
OK.
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed there's a costly signed 64-bit division in rtx_cost on x86 as
> > well as
> > any other target where UNITS_PER_WORD is implemented like TARGET_64BI
Ping^3.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed there's a costly signed 64-bit division in rtx_cost on x86 as well
> as
> any other target where UNITS_PER_WORD is implemented like TARGET_64BIT ? 8 :
> 4.
> It's also evident that rtx_cost does redundant work for a SET r
Ping.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed there's a costly signed 64-bit division in rtx_cost on x86 as well
> as
> any other target where UNITS_PER_WORD is implemented like TARGET_64BIT ? 8 :
> 4.
> It's also evident that rtx_cost does redundant work for a SET rtx
Ping.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed there's a costly signed 64-bit division in rtx_cost on x86 as well
> as
> any other target where UNITS_PER_WORD is implemented like TARGET_64BIT ? 8 :
> 4.
> It's also evident that rtx_cost does redundant work for a SET rtx
Hi,
I noticed there's a costly signed 64-bit division in rtx_cost on x86 as well as
any other target where UNITS_PER_WORD is implemented like TARGET_64BIT ? 8 : 4.
It's also evident that rtx_cost does redundant work for a SET rtx argument.
Obviously the variable named 'factor' rarely exceeds 1, s
