On 11/13/19 5:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:13:48PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> Also, it does not compute costs for jump >> insns, so they are always set to zero. As a consequence, any possible >> substitution is performed if a combination into a jump is possible, >> which turns out isn't really desirable on m68k with cbranch patterns. >> >> This patch simply removes a test for NONJUMP_INSN_P. Bootstrapped and >> tested on the gcc135 machine (powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu). > > I wonder why that test was there. It was added in r84513, which is where > insn_rtx_cost was made from combine_insn_cost, which didn't have that > non-jump thing yet. > > It is still stage 1, so we'll find out if any target breaks I guess. > Okay for trunk. Thanks!
Thanks. Just FYI, this is held up a little. I decided I'd also test on x86, and there it shows a case where ix86_rtx_cost misses something: the i386/pr30315.c testcase wants to combine compares into addition+jump on carry, but the rtx_costs show too high a cost for (compare (plus)). I'm testing a fix for that in i386.c. Bernd
