From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 753 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2011 07:59:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 745 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2011 07:59:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (HELO e5.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:59:29 +0000 Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p6F7Ufrc013726 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:30:41 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p6F7xRXn124672 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:59:27 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p6F7xQfm016639 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:59:26 -0400 Received: from [9.164.130.96] (ICON-9-164-130-96.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.164.130.96]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p6F7xP1r016613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:59:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4E1FF35D.3030103@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:06:00 -0000 From: Andreas Krebbel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: Steven Bosscher , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Henderson Subject: Re: [PATCH] widening_mul: Do cost check when propagating mult into plus/minus expressions References: <20110713131305.GA5348@bart> In-Reply-To: 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: 2011-07/txt/msg01218.txt.bz2 On 07/14/2011 11:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > (look how the vectorizer > for example uses new target hooks instead of generating vectorized RTL > and then using rtx_cost). But wouldn't we then end up with just a bunch of special purpose tree_cost functions again?! Then we would again be doomed to duplicate rtx_cost logic on a different IR what has already been considered to be a bad idea. -Andreas-