From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E11EE3858D37; Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:22:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E11EE3858D37 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1676190142; bh=QmSFEcEGOligyrs8RemkFREyjieYTh5PviWvLtkxnjM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WGR1Tt4EGSDMcHO0GtUoG+NFuIXmRhpBfPMizRURjQqm+j9UX+WUjHQYZsBqukavc /fTQvQilMZ72jifdNCtuEcHHgiFz/X9qXUqs77N8p7Iraeborv6LHdLeo4kyZAqMxz RycNodeJ2bYRD6O7nd9wO5PCaf5XcqSdAuCgWZHI= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/108764] [RISCV] Cost model for RVB is too aggressive Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 08:22:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108764 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- slli a4,a2,3 sh3add a5,a2,a0 vs slli a2,a2,3 add a5,a0,a2 I think the first one is better really because you have two indepedent instructions and can be issued at the same time. Really this is all core specific and the generic tuning should be "generic" which means this is the correct tuning ...=