This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 2nd try for patch for automaton based pipeline hazard recognizer (part #1)
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at toke dot toronto dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: 2nd try for patch for automaton based pipeline hazard recognizer (part #1)
- From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann at godzilla dot ICS dot UCI dot EDU>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:26:03 -0700
- Cc: geoffk at cygnus dot com
[snip]
I have a comment on the constructs used to describe the pipeline, it
uses regular expressions in a string.
That is a little bit not-orthogonal with the rest of the .md file, as
regexps are an infix notation and the rest of .md language is a prefix
language.
IMO something like:
(define_insn_reservation "mult" 4 (eq_attr "cpu" "mult")
(sequence "i1_pipeline" (nothing 3)
(or "port_0" "port1")))
is a little bit more understandable and probably easier to parse
than:
(define_insn_reservation "mult" 4 (eq_attr "cpu" "mult")
"i1_pipeline, nothing*3, (port_0 | port1)")
(stolen from your example)
Of course this could turn into a religious discussion...
Just wondering what everybody thinks...
--dan