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: Dan Nicolaescu <dann at godzilla dot ICS dot UCI dot EDU>
- Subject: Re: 2nd try for patch for automaton based pipeline hazard recognizer(part #1)
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:02:02 +0100 (BST)
- cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at toke dot toronto dot redhat dot com>, <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
> 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)")
Can't say I agree. It's probably safe to assume that everyone working
on gcc can read string regexps.
Bernd