Re: patch to fix PR70703

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:11:54AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> --- ira-color.c	(revision 246536)
> +++ ira-color.c	(working copy)
> @@ -1367,6 +1367,16 @@ update_costs_from_allocno (ira_allocno_t
>  	      || ALLOCNO_ASSIGNED_P (another_allocno))
>  	    continue;
>  
> +	  if (GET_MODE_SIZE (ALLOCNO_MODE (cp->second)) < GET_MODE_SIZE (mode))
> +	    /* If we have different modes use the smallest one.  It is
> +	       a sub-register move.  It is hard to predict what LRA
> +	       will reload (the pseudo or its sub-register) but LRA
> +	       will try to minimize the data movement.  Also for some
> +	       register classes bigger modes might be invalid,
> +	       e.g. DImode for AREG on x86.  For such cases the
> +	       register move cost will be maximal. */
> +	    mode = ALLOCNO_MODE (cp->second);
> +	  
>  	  cost = (cp->second == allocno
>  		  ? ira_register_move_cost[mode][rclass][aclass]
>  		  : ira_register_move_cost[mode][aclass][rclass]);
> @@ -1512,7 +1522,7 @@ update_conflict_hard_regno_costs (int *c
>  		index = ira_class_hard_reg_index[aclass][hard_regno];
>  		if (index < 0)
>  		  continue;
> -		cost = (int) ((unsigned) conflict_costs [i] * mult) / div;
> +		cost = (int) (((long) conflict_costs [i] * mult) / div);

If you want something wider than unsigned, wouldn't it be better to
use HOST_WIDE_INT then?  Otherwise it will work differently between
32-bit and 64-bit hosts.
Can any of those 3 values be negative?  If not, perhaps
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT?

	Jakub