On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 10:31 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/3/23 17:38, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> >> ;-) Actually if you wanted to poke at zicond, the most interesting
> >> unexplored area I've come across is the COND_EXPR handling in gimple.
> >> When we expand a COND_EXPR into RT
On 8/3/23 17:38, Vineet Gupta wrote:
;-) Actually if you wanted to poke at zicond, the most interesting
unexplored area I've come across is the COND_EXPR handling in gimple.
When we expand a COND_EXPR into RTL the first approach we take is to
try movcc in RTL.
Unfortunately we don't crea
On 8/3/23 16:15, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/3/23 16:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
As discussed in Tue call, I definitely have 1 fix to riscv_rtx_costs
(), which is worth pondering. It adjusts the cost of consts and helps
Hoist GCSE constants (which granted kicks in only at -Os). However it
does aff
On 8/3/23 16:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
As discussed in Tue call, I definitely have 1 fix to riscv_rtx_costs (),
which is worth pondering. It adjusts the cost of consts and helps Hoist
GCSE constants (which granted kicks in only at -Os). However it does
affect codegen in subtle ways since CSE
On 8/3/23 11:12, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 08:05:09 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
[...]
There's a bigger TODO in this space WRT a top-to-bottom evaluation of
the costing on RISC-V. I'm still formulating what that evaluation is
going to look like, so don'
On 8/3/23 11:41, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 08:05:09 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
I'm using this hunk locally to more thoroughly exercise the zicond paths
due to inaccuracies elsewhere in the costing model. It was never
supposed to be part of the costing commit
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 08:05:09 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
I'm using this hunk locally to more thoroughly exercise the zicond paths
due to inaccuracies elsewhere in the costing model. It was never
supposed to be part of the costing commit though. And as we've seen
it's causing pr
