https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #14)
> My apologies for not keeping folks updated on my thinking. Following Oleg's
> feedback, I've decided to slim down my proposed fix to the bare minimum, and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #14 from Roger Sayle ---
My apologies for not keeping folks updated on my thinking. Following Oleg's
feedback, I've decided to slim down my proposed fix to the bare minimum, and
postpone the other rtx_costs improvements until GCC 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #12)
> It should be mentioned that the fwprop fix for PR11267 also resolved several
> FAILs in gcc.target/sh/pr59533.c. I mention this as tweaking the cost of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #10)
> I've found an interesting table of SH cycle counts (for different CPUs) at
> http://www.shared-ptr.com/sh_insns.html
Yeah, I know. I did that ;)
> In my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #10 from Roger Sayle ---
Hi Oleg. Great question. The "speed" parameter passed to rtx_costs, and
address_cost indicates whether the middle-end is optimizing for peformance, and
interested in the nummber of cycles taken by each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #8)
> Created attachment 57190 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Proposed patch to provide a sane/saner set of rtx_costs for SH. There's
> plenty more that could be done,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #8 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 57190
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57190=edit
proposed patch
Proposed patch to provide a sane/saner set of rtx_costs for SH. There's plenty
more that could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #6)
> To help diagnose the problem, I came up with this simple patch:
Thanks for looking into it!
> which then helps reveal that on sh3-linux-gnu with -O1 we see:
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> That seems to make the cost of a load/store if just an index, the same as the
> cost
> as the index. Which definitely seems wrong. It should be the cost of the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> The way aarch64 implements its _rtx_costs is that it cases SET and if the
> LHS is a mem, then it is the cost of the store there and returns true
> (though you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > This is most likely a cost model issue on sh3.
>
> You mean this one (sh.cc, sh_rtx_costs)?
>
> /* The cost of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is most likely a cost model issue on sh3.
You mean this one (sh.cc, sh_rtx_costs)?
/* The cost of a mem access is mainly the cost of the address mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sh3-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
16 matches
Mail list logo
