On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 10:53:33AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 06:01:47PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 02:20:40PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Here are the reload costs for the various alternatives of
> > > movsf_hardfloat:
> > > "=!r, !r, m, f, ww, ww, !r, f, wb, m, wY, wu, Z,?wn, ?r,*c*l, !r, *h"
> > > "r, m, r, f, ww, j, j, m, wY, f, wb, Z, wu, r, wn, r, *h, 0"
> > > 617 609 17 17 8 8 617 9 8 17 17 8 17 23 23 17 617 17
> >
> > I agree reg-reg moves should come after reg-mem moves, but is it such
> > a good idea to put e.g. f->f after r->*c*l?
>
> I doubt it matters but I agree that it's unnecessary to move the
> reg-reg moves to the last alternative. They just need to be after
> equivalent class reg-mem moves. I'll move them earlier, which is
> better since exact matches cut short the alternative evaluation.
Thanks!
> > The costs look in pretty bad shape anyway.
>
> They make sense to me.. At least, they did when I was looking at them
> in reload. :) One thing I didn't show is that alternatives like ww,j
> are rejected regardless of the cost ("bad" is set by find_reloads).
For some reason I forgot ww is a superset of f. Yeah it's not so bad.
Perhaps :-)
Segher
