From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65313 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2017 16:57:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 64774 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2017 16:57:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:56:59 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v79Guu4f027359; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:56:56 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v79GutF7027358; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:56:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:57:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jeff Law Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC, WIP: RTL cost improvements Message-ID: <20170809165655.GV13471@gate.crashing.org> References: <87zibegwfb.fsf@linaro.org> <20170805171546.GC13471@gate.crashing.org> <3f10fa05-87ae-2580-819b-27cf69c4c6e9@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3f10fa05-87ae-2580-819b-27cf69c4c6e9@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00686.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:41:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 08/05/2017 11:15 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > For size cost I currently use just "length", but I haven't looked at > > size cost much at all yet. > I think that's fine. "length" is pretty standardized at this point and > it's the right metric. For ports that don't bother defining a length > attribute, punt in some reasonable manner. I do this is in the target hook, not in generic code. Commonizing two lines of code (at the cost of extra complexity for targets that do *not* want to handle things that way) is not worth it IMO. Segher