On 27/04/16 15:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that
> sign-extending loads get a higher cost than they should in the arm backend.
> The problem is that when handling a sign-extend of a MEM we add the cost
> of the
Ping.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 11/05/16 10:00, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01655.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 27/04/16 15:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that
sign-extending loads get a
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01655.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 27/04/16 15:13, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that
sign-extending loads get a higher cost than they should in the arm backend.
The problem is
Hi all,
Another costs issue that came out of the investigation for PR 65932 is that
sign-extending loads get a higher cost than they should in the arm backend.
The problem is that when handling a sign-extend of a MEM we add the cost
of the load_sign_extend cost field and then recursively add the
