Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-26 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 25/06/15 17:27, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/25/2015 06:28 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> On 24/06/15 17:47, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote: So in these examples we'd really like register moves to cost one insn. Hmm, at least, moves from hard regs ought t

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-25 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/25/2015 06:28 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 24/06/15 17:47, Jeff Law wrote: On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote: So in these examples we'd really like register moves to cost one insn. Hmm, at least, moves from hard regs ought to cost something. The more I think about it, the more

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-25 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 24/06/15 17:47, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >> >> So in these examples we'd really like register moves to cost one >> insn. Hmm, at least, moves from hard regs ought to cost something. > The more I think about it, the more I think that's a reasonable step. > Noth

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-24 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote: So in these examples we'd really like register moves to cost one insn. Hmm, at least, moves from hard regs ought to cost something. The more I think about it, the more I think that's a reasonable step. Nothing should have cost 0. Jeff

RE: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-24 Thread Ajit Kumar Agarwal
-Original Message- From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Kenner Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:28 PM To: l...@redhat.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: set_src_cost lying comment > These are good examples of things the costing model sim

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-24 Thread Richard Kenner
> These are good examples of things the costing model > simply wasn't ever designed to consider -- because they weren't > significant issues on the m68k, vax and other ports in the gcc-1 era. > > So I don't really know how to tell you to proceed -- I've considered the > costing models fundamen

RE: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-24 Thread Ajit Kumar Agarwal
-Original Message- From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:36 AM To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: set_src_cost lying comment On 06/21/2015 11:57 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > set_src_cost says it is supposed

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-24 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/24/2015 03:18 AM, Alan Modra wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:05:45PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: I certainly agree that the cost of a move, logicals and arithmetic is essentially the same at the chip level for many processors. But a copy has other properties that make it "cheaper" -- namely

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-24 Thread Alan Modra
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:05:45PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > I certainly agree that the cost of a move, logicals and arithmetic is > essentially the same at the chip level for many processors. But a copy has > other properties that make it "cheaper" -- namely we can often propagate it > away or arr

Re: set_src_cost lying comment

2015-06-23 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/21/2015 11:57 PM, Alan Modra wrote: set_src_cost says it is supposed to /* Return the cost of moving X into a register, relative to the cost of a register move. SPEED_P is true if optimizing for speed rather than size. */ Now, set_src_cost of a register move (set (reg1) (reg2)),