From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119053 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2017 06:39:00 -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 43512 invoked by uid 89); 10 Aug 2017 06:37:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-wm0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:37:33 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i66so13791360wmg.0 for ; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 23:37:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references :date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=C3gzfcS1THftG9P6c0pYH2A716ECuzKekl2+vUrwT+U=; b=mGnvdpmOUBglsqhT6ImsqpjZPwTg2541cxzdNBaiecLATZKlEdQABuE3unO7VylLtI 42+J0i8uDmPKr76gf3HPQa2PO98W4tDna6OqpgAt6+ua7bfWjAWRddb5EqFNsB+8pudm c2Sn0kArHqeGXWPm6CoIcw29fNAOOpop3EVvXo53Cwt6wqAge2Z6X+RAjanbDEsFYFM+ zHiElGSfJdk8LXDY6ieKF1HMduSk2aOSZLcbKuq1H0B27/AmIvK3ZPNn9c5no7QuBGJX U3immksdY/218hh2zV0uKaC+TAT0ShIjmn0oxpWTfhdSQXjLxMM78KsADG3f7G9KCRHK AtkA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5glBh5X3MzpGElxIDQRkMZ9u/J7ePcwNgkp7FThB6vO2NkK8KJw AE68EHiGID4vvx9WHF1brA== X-Received: by 10.28.59.8 with SMTP id i8mr8140544wma.53.1502347051293; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 23:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2.26.27.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k4sm4734697wrc.34.2017.08.09.23.37.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Aug 2017 23:37:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Segher Boessenkool Mail-Followup-To: Segher Boessenkool ,Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org Cc: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC, WIP: RTL cost improvements 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> <20170809171213.GW13471@gate.crashing.org> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20170809171213.GW13471@gate.crashing.org> (Segher Boessenkool's message of "Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:12:13 -0500") Message-ID: <87fud0vsgm.fsf@linaro.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00718.txt.bz2 Segher Boessenkool writes: > 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 :-( Are there really 190 separate cases though? If not, then it's possible to have separate attributes that describe various forms of multi-instruction pattern. These can then get mapped automatically to the appropriate "type" and often can also be used to set a conservatively-correct "length". Thanks, Richard