From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7504 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2011 15:37:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 7333 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2011 15:37:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:37:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5KFawA0029980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:36:58 -0400 Received: from pebble.twiddle.home (vpn-238-210.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.238.210]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5KFavXc031494; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:36:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4DFF6903.4060508@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:39:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Georg-Johann Lay CC: "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Denis Chertykov , Anatoly Sokolov , "Eric B. Weddington" Subject: Re: [Patch, AVR]: QI builtins for parity, popcount, 1<< n References: <4DFA26FE.1000400@gjlay.de> <4DFB32BA.9090009@gjlay.de> <4DFB9DD9.9070700@gjlay.de> <4DFF573D.2000807@gjlay.de> In-Reply-To: <4DFF573D.2000807@gjlay.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-06/txt/msg01498.txt.bz2 On 06/20/2011 07:20 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > A libcall could be added in TARGET_INIT_LIBCALLS, so a new hook is not > needed. All that's needed is that optabs tests for presence of such > an entry and prefers it over inline expansion (and prefers insn over > libcall). It appears that + and - are assumed to be cheaps or inline > expansion is always cheap. No, we assume that if the inline pattern is present and enabled, it is to be preferred over the libcall. All you have to do to get __adddi3 called is remove/disable the adddi3 pattern. r~