From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23412 invoked by alias); 18 May 2011 18:27:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 23401 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2011 18:27:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 18:27:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 15916 invoked from network); 18 May 2011 18:27:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.68?) (vries@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 May 2011 18:27:43 -0000 Message-ID: <4DD40F68.8090006@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 19:30:00 -0000 From: Tom de Vries User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zdenek Dvorak CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR45098, 3/10] References: <4DD21F6E.4050308@codesourcery.com> <4DD220C1.7000405@codesourcery.com> <20110518072620.GA18720@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4DD39392.7000400@codesourcery.com> <20110518152457.GA13360@kam.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20110518152457.GA13360@kam.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01309.txt.bz2 Hi Zdenek, On 05/18/2011 05:24 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > Hi, > >> How about: >> ... >> @@ -2866,6 +2878,8 @@ computation_cost (tree expr, bool speed) >> if (MEM_P (rslt)) >> cost += address_cost (XEXP (rslt, 0), TYPE_MODE (type), >> TYPE_ADDR_SPACE (type), speed); >> + else if (!REG_P (rslt)) >> + cost += (unsigned)rtx_cost (rslt, SET, speed); >> >> return cost; >> } >> ... >> ? > > this looks ok to me > thanks for the review. > (the cast to unsigned is not necessary, though?) You're right, it's not, that was only necessary to prevent a warning in the conditional expression originally proposed. Checked in without cast. Thanks, - Tom