From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93039 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2017 17:12:38 -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 88752 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2017 17:12:36 -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 17:12:35 +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 v79HCGqa029112; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:12:20 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v79HCEq7029107; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:12:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:12:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC, WIP: RTL cost improvements Message-ID: <20170809171213.GW13471@gate.crashing.org> References: <87zibegwfb.fsf@linaro.org> <20170805171546.GC13471@gate.crashing.org> <3f10fa05-87ae-2580-819b-27cf69c4c6e9@redhat.com> <871som9ezk.fsf@linaro.org> <3a609f36-d07b-1e75-259b-dba687ff9302@redhat.com> <20170809164026.GU13471@gate.crashing.org> <878tis8ywf.fsf@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878tis8ywf.fsf@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00687.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:54:40PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Segher Boessenkool writes: > > We need it, for example, to properly cost the various define_insn_and_split > > (for which "type" is only an approximation, and is woefully inadequate > > for determining cost). > > But define_insn_and_splits could override the cost explicitly if they > need to. That seems neater than testing for them in C. All 190 of them? Not counting those that are define_insn+define_split (we still have way too many of those). Neat, indeed, but not altogether practical :-( Segher From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16866 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2017 18:12:45 -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 16851 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2017 18:12:45 -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 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy=HX-detected-operating-system:2.6.x X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:12:44 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfVTD-0008Kx-FY for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 14:12:42 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:57752) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfVTC-0008JY-N9 for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 14:12:39 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v79HCGqa029112; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:12:20 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v79HCEq7029107; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:12:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:18:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC, WIP: RTL cost improvements Message-ID: <20170809171213.GW13471@gate.crashing.org> References: <87zibegwfb.fsf@linaro.org> <20170805171546.GC13471@gate.crashing.org> <3f10fa05-87ae-2580-819b-27cf69c4c6e9@redhat.com> <871som9ezk.fsf@linaro.org> <3a609f36-d07b-1e75-259b-dba687ff9302@redhat.com> <20170809164026.GU13471@gate.crashing.org> <878tis8ywf.fsf@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878tis8ywf.fsf@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 63.228.1.57 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00692.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20170809181800.Qxt9ijMnrXzZkXvyyFEFJpr_o_0jxYclke6LCgu8tjE@z> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:54:40PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Segher Boessenkool writes: > > We need it, for example, to properly cost the various define_insn_and_split > > (for which "type" is only an approximation, and is woefully inadequate > > for determining cost). > > But define_insn_and_splits could override the cost explicitly if they > need to. That seems neater than testing for them in C. All 190 of them? Not counting those that are define_insn+define_split (we still have way too many of those). Neat, indeed, but not altogether practical :-( Segher