On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> BTW: There are some ix86_tune == XXX conditions scattered throughout >>>> LEA handling code. Can these be substituted with appropriate TARGET_* >>>> defines? >>> >>> I have been looking at them closely to check their impacts on >>> both Haswell and Silvermont. I am planning to keep >>> the simple LEA -> ADD transformation, but avoid >>> the complex LEA -> ADD/MOV/SHL transformation. >> >> No, I didn't talk about functional change, but about equivalent >> TARGET_* define that can be used instead of "(ix86_tune == >> PROCESSOR_SILVERMONT) || (ix86_tune == PROCESSOR_INTEL)". >> >> Uros. > > Something like > > #define TARGET_INTEL_SILVERMONT \ > (ix86_tune == PROCESSOR_SILVERMONT || ix86_tune == PROCESSOR_INTEL) > >
I see what I meant. I will submit a patch. -- H.J.
