Hi Robert,
This fix on gcc-5-branch doesn't apply on Linaro 5 branch, because we
have backported trunk revision 222624 (which renames maybe_fma to
coumpound_p) into it. So, our branch as the same code as trunk one
regarding aarch64_rtx_costs. Do you experiment any issues related to
this change ?
Regards,
Yvan
On 3 December 2015 at 11:37, Robert Schiele <rschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that with the merge
>
> commit ac19ac6481a3f326d9f41403f5dadab548b2c8a6
> Author: Yvan Roux <yvan.r...@linaro.org>
> Date: Wed Sep 16 10:57:42 2015 +0200
>
> Merge branches/gcc-5-branch rev 227732.
>
> Change-Id: I2f59904b28323b1c72a8cf1bd62c9e460d95bcea
>
> the following branch that was within merge range on gcc-5-branch was
> lost on the linaro branch:
>
> commit b45a5cf7c1544f95578e823e25402b58fb3fbedd
> Author: nsz <nsz@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
> Date: Tue Aug 4 16:49:54 2015 +0000
>
> Fix broken backport patch.
>
> gcc:
>
> Backport from mainline:
> 2015-08-04 Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.n...@arm.com>
>
> PR target/66731
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_rtx_costs): Fix NEG cost for
> FNMUL.
> (aarch64_rtx_mult_cost): Fix MULT cost with -frounding-math.
>
>
>
> git-svn-id:
> svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch@226588
> 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index 691874b..eebc9c3 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> @@ -5250,7 +5250,7 @@ aarch64_rtx_mult_cost (rtx x, int code, int
> outer, bool speed)
> which case FNMUL is different than FMUL with operand negation.
> */
> bool neg0 = GET_CODE (op0) == NEG;
> bool neg1 = GET_CODE (op1) == NEG;
> - if (compound_p || !flag_rounding_math || (neg0 && neg1))
> + if (maybe_fma || !flag_rounding_math || (neg0 && neg1))
> {
> if (neg0)
> op0 = XEXP (op0, 0);
>
> Since this was a fix to the patch one commit ahead and also merged in
> the same operation and there is no further comment on why this fix was
> skipped, may I assume that this happened by accident and you probably
> want to fix that merge flaw by reapplying the missing patch? Or is
> there an information detail I don't have that requires this fix to be
> skipped on the Linaro branch?
>
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-toolchain mailing list
> linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
_______________________________________________
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
