On 10/27/23 11:39, Andrew Waterman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:44 AM Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/27/23 01:37, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
LGTM from my side.
The original integer division COST seems too low.
Almost certainly, though there may be good reasons why it was initially
set so l
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:44 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/27/23 01:37, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> > LGTM from my side.
> >
> > The original integer division COST seems too low.
> Almost certainly, though there may be good reasons why it was initially
> set so low. I'm generally hesitant to
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:55 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/27/23 01:49, Robin Dapp wrote:
> >> @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static const struct riscv_tune_param rocket_tune_info
> >> = {
> >> {COSTS_N_INSNS (4), COSTS_N_INSNS (5)}, /* fp_mul */
> >> {COSTS_N_INSNS (20), COSTS_N_INSNS (20)},
On 10/26/23 12:50, Yangyu Chen wrote:
This patch fixes an issue with the cost on "int_div" in various RISC-V
tune parameters including those for Rocket, SiFive U7 series, and T-Head
C906. This incorrect cost value interferes with the optimization process.
For example, it prevents the optimizat
On 10/27/23 01:49, Robin Dapp wrote:
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static const struct riscv_tune_param rocket_tune_info = {
{COSTS_N_INSNS (4), COSTS_N_INSNS (5)}, /* fp_mul */
{COSTS_N_INSNS (20), COSTS_N_INSNS (20)}, /* fp_div */
{COSTS_N_INSNS (4), COSTS_N_INSNS (4)}, /* int_mu
On 10/27/23 01:37, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
LGTM from my side.
The original integer division COST seems too low.
Almost certainly, though there may be good reasons why it was initially
set so low. I'm generally hesitant to change things like that without
either someone with knowledge of
> @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static const struct riscv_tune_param rocket_tune_info = {
>{COSTS_N_INSNS (4), COSTS_N_INSNS (5)},/* fp_mul */
>{COSTS_N_INSNS (20), COSTS_N_INSNS (20)}, /* fp_div */
>{COSTS_N_INSNS (4), COSTS_N_INSNS (4)},/* int_mul */
> - {COSTS_N_INSNS (6), COSTS_N_IN
