From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113476 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2016 09:00:46 -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 113455 invoked by uid 89); 4 Feb 2016 09:00:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:944 X-HELO: mail-wm0-f50.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f50.google.com) (74.125.82.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:00:44 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id p63so106836190wmp.1 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:00:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5IqTiMmYRIKuJDzMgQWiVa01jyjSSRAyHG+eufw1Uw4=; b=Z6WwYTsde3pu/wmOvApkd0tK3HvoXFj0wn7AVso4cevXGPvcbbjfHBl1jDXXalYTtC 6T3Ppa2xBuZ5vCUxxhTQF/WMrofWfVtxGigcyqnW8whlIW4aR30VwcIPF/vxMkcjZERA /1v5hi8harp9j2hLiRfIVXqztLxf1zQg/E3zG1YlhVM4Z2BaDSZGEnjWrJAtWnf/gQe3 +x0DJtSs9QBzRB660xn17Br4FU8WZ/8TjtC6o5H/E4y1Vm1EOlohgotvZzQ1nzn/Ngj3 lQAj6h2iJuCWjlKIFdDKwhKVru0IqLWkR/moLvaBVig9G7BFdLUFyiYbxckbIbMujun6 FLcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSrPhQoBHjenq8qUrSx6Eo+KquVzcC3jK5iTGPYgZkUXMXBKBd7duY+ZL8W0Pcekpabo4Gt2Z76UxvcWg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.137.213 with SMTP id l204mr30892617wmd.100.1454576441145; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.212.200 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 01:00:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56A1FBDF.6020402@foss.arm.com> References: <56A1FBDF.6020402@foss.arm.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM][2/4] Fix operand costing logic for SMUL[TB][TB] From: Ramana Radhakrishnan To: Kyrill Tkachov Cc: GCC Patches , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Richard Earnshaw , Jim Wilson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > As part of investigating the codegen effects of a fix for PR 65932 I found > we assign > too high a cost for the sign-extending multiply instruction SMULBB. > This is because we add the cost of a multiply-extend but then also recurse > into the > SIGN_EXTEND sub-expressions rather than the registers (or subregs) being > sign-extended. > > This patch is a simple fix. The fix is right by itself, but in combination > with patch 3 > fix the gcc.target/arm/wmul-2.c testcase. > > Bootstrapped and tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. > > Ok for trunk? > OK. Thanks, Ramana > Thanks, > Kyrill > > 2016-01-22 Kyrylo Tkachov > > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_new_rtx_costs, MULT case): Properly extract > the operands of the SIGN_EXTENDs from a SMUL[TB][TB] rtx.