Re: [PATCH][ARM] Handle UNSPEC_VOLATILE in rtx costs and don't recurse inside the unspec

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Kyrill Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com wrote: Hi all, A pet project of mine is to get to the point where backend rtx costs functions won't have to handle rtxes that don't match down to any patterns/expanders we have. Or at least limit such cases. A case dealt

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Handle UNSPEC_VOLATILE in rtx costs and don't recurse inside the unspec

Ping^3. Thanks, Kyrill On 12/05/15 10:08, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Ping^2. Thanks, Kyrill On 30/04/15 13:01, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01047.html Thanks, Kyrill On 20/04/15 17:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, A pet project of mine is to get to

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Handle UNSPEC_VOLATILE in rtx costs and don't recurse inside the unspec

Ping^2. Thanks, Kyrill On 30/04/15 13:01, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01047.html Thanks, Kyrill On 20/04/15 17:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, A pet project of mine is to get to the point where backend rtx costs functions won't have to handle

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Handle UNSPEC_VOLATILE in rtx costs and don't recurse inside the unspec

Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01047.html Thanks, Kyrill On 20/04/15 17:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi all, A pet project of mine is to get to the point where backend rtx costs functions won't have to handle rtxes that don't match down to any patterns/expanders we have. Or

[PATCH][ARM] Handle UNSPEC_VOLATILE in rtx costs and don't recurse inside the unspec

Hi all, A pet project of mine is to get to the point where backend rtx costs functions won't have to handle rtxes that don't match down to any patterns/expanders we have. Or at least limit such cases. A case dealt with in this patch is QImode PLUS. We don't actually generate or handle these