Hi Uros, > -----Original Message----- > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Kumar, Venkataramanan > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 7:21 PM > To: Uros Bizjak (ubiz...@gmail.com); gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Richard Beiner (richard.guent...@gmail.com) > Subject: [Patch x86_64]: fix order of cost table initialization for - > march=znver1. > > Hi Uros, > > While debugging GCC to see if cost of multiplication for DI mode is set > correctly for znver1 target. > I found that the order of cost table insertion is wrong for znver1 and it > worked because btver2 had same cost for multiply . > > The patch corrects the mistake I made. > > 2016-03-08 Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan.ku...@amd.com> > > * config/i386/i386.c (processor_target_table): Fix cost table > initialization order for znver1. > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c index > 8a026ae..3d67c65 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c > @@ -2662,9 +2662,9 @@ static const struct ptt > processor_target_table[PROCESSOR_max] = > {"bdver2", &bdver2_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, > {"bdver3", &bdver3_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, > {"bdver4", &bdver4_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, > - {"znver1", &znver1_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, > {"btver1", &btver1_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, > - {"btver2", &btver2_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11} > + {"btver2", &btver2_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, {"znver1", > + &znver1_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, > }; > > It passes normal bootstrap and bootstrap with BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -g - > march=znver1 -mno-clzero -mno-sha " on avx2 target. > > Is it ok for trunk?
Please find the correct patch below. Change Log 2016-03-08 Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan.ku...@amd.com> * config/i386/i386.c (processor_target_table): Fix cost table initialization order for znver1. ----snip---- diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c index 8a026ae..234327a 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c @@ -2662,9 +2662,9 @@ static const struct ptt processor_target_table[PROCESSOR_max] = {"bdver2", &bdver2_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, {"bdver3", &bdver3_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, {"bdver4", &bdver4_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, - {"znver1", &znver1_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, {"btver1", &btver1_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, - {"btver2", &btver2_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11} + {"btver2", &btver2_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11}, + {"znver1", &znver1_cost, 16, 10, 16, 7, 11} }; ----snip---- Ok for trunk? > > Regards, > Venkat.