hi Richard,
I've Updated patch and added testcases basically they are the same testcase just
using different constants
I tried combining them into one testcase couldn'tget the scan-assembler stuff
working when multiple functions were in the assembler output I couldn't
couldn't work
out
Graham Stott graham.st...@btinternet.com writes:
gcc/ChangeLog
* config/mips/mips.c (): Very slightly increase code of MUL.whren
optimizing for size.
* config/mips/mips.c (mips_rtx_costs): Very slightly increase
the cost of MULT when optimizing for size.
Richard,
I'll renumber then consecutively and fix the typo and change log entry before I
commit
Thanks
Graham
- Original Message -
From: Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com
To: Graham Stott graham.st...@btinternet.com
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Hi Richard,
The problem was with adjusting to be more expansive the load imm + mul sequence
and
the shift + add sequence were the smake cost when optimizing for size so the
code in expmed.c
choose the MUL.
I also considered this version also I couldn't decide which was better just
went with
Hi Richard,
When -Os is used and the multiplier is of the for 2^N +- 1 we generate a MUL
instruction
rather that a shift-left N and add-sub 1.
The problem is that rtx cost for the MUL is too cheap causing the shift-left
and add-sub sequence
to be more expensive.
This patch makes the
Graham Stott graham.st...@btinternet.com writes:
When -Os is used and the multiplier is of the for 2^N +- 1 we generate
a MUL instruction rather that a shift-left N and add-sub 1.
The problem is that rtx cost for the MUL is too cheap causing the
shift-left and add-sub sequence to be more
