Re: Query regarding RTL Template in i386.md

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

Piyush Porwal <porwalpiyush@cse.iitb.ac.in> writes:

> I would like to request your help in a specific matter which
> relates to i386.md (GCC-4.0).

A question like this, a specific question about the gcc source code,
could reasonably have gone to gcc@gcc.gnu.org rather than
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org.  But gcc-help is fine too.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (define_insn "*adddi_2_rex64"
>    [(set (reg FLAGS_REG)
>          (compare
>            (plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "%0,0")
>                     (match_operand:DI 2 "x86_64_general_operand" "rme,re"))
>            (const_int 0)))
>     (set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,rm")
>          (plus:DI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As visible in the template, it contains two 'set' operators. A few
> questions that come to mind are:
> 
>   - the  use  of  multiple   'set'  constructs:  in  particular,  what
>     aspect(s) of the instruction set, or the target machine, guides us
>     to choose such a construction,

If a single machine instruction changes two registers, then it is
reasonable and normal to use a parallel with two sets, as above.  This
is typical of i386 arithmetic instructions: they set a result
register, and they also set the condition code flags.  This is
generally the case on processors with condition codes.  Many RISC
processors, by comparison, do not have condition codes, and instead
have comparison instructions which set specific registers.

>   - how does  one 'evaluate' the  benefits if other patterns  with one
>     'set' are possible, (this particularly pertains to the decision of
>     where  to   place  the  insn   pattern  in  the   overall  machine
>     description, since GCC uses a 'first hit' approach).

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question.  If the combine pass
sees that there are multiple sets in an insn, and, say, sees that all
but one are dead, and is able to find a insn pattern which matches the
single live set, then it will use that insn pattern.  Similarly, if
combine sees two related single-set insns, and finds an insn pattern
which can do both in one pattern, it will replace both of them with
the single pattern.  In neither case does the ordering matter.  Other
than those examples, the compiler rarely chooses between single-set
insns and multi-set insns.

Ian