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 :-( Segher
