On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:54:40PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> 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 :-(


Reply via email to