Re: “ira_may_move_out_cost” vs “ira_register_move_cost”

On 6/18/24 03:38, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: Hi Vladimir, On 14/06/24 10:56 pm, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 6/13/24 00:34, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: Hi Vladimir, With my patch for PR111673 (scale the spill/restore cost of callee-save register with the frequency of the entry bb in the routi

Re: “ira_may_move_out_cost” vs “ira_register_move_cost”

Hi Vladimir, On 14/06/24 10:56 pm, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > On 6/13/24 00:34, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: >> Hi Vladimir, >> With my patch for PR111673 (scale the spill/restore cost of callee-save >> register with the frequency of the entry bb in the routine assign_hard_reg() >> : >> https://

Re: “ira_may_move_out_cost” vs “ira_register_move_cost”

On 6/13/24 00:34, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: Hi Vladimir, With my patch for PR111673 (scale the spill/restore cost of callee-save register with the frequency of the entry bb in the routine assign_hard_reg() : https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/631849.html), the following Li

“ira_may_move_out_cost” vs “ira_register_move_cost”

Hi Vladimir, With my patch for PR111673 (scale the spill/restore cost of callee-save register with the frequency of the entry bb in the routine assign_hard_reg() : https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/631849.html), the following Linaro aarch64 test failed due to an extra 'mov'