https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #12) > It should be mentioned that the fwprop fix for PR11267 also resolved several > FAILs in gcc.target/sh/pr59533.c. I mention this as tweaking the cost of > SIGN_EXTEND in sh_rtx_costs interacts with the (redundant) extensions > mentioned in the initial description of PR59533. Good to know, thanks! I'll try to look into it. > It's still not entirely clear to me why we would want to squash the costs > of addresses to 0 when optimizing for size? What does effect does it have > on the generated code? I can't imagine how it would be possibly making > any smaller code? Roger, could you please comment on that? I'm still somewhat puzzled...
