This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:28:48 -0500
- Cc: cpopetz at cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <10003161643.AA29057@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Mon, Mar 16, 1970 at 11:43:40AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Actually, since I can do lookahead, how about:
>
> "condition"
>
> "&& reload_completed"
>
> That seems to better reflect the actual relationship of the two conditions.
>
> I guess that works since it would be meaningless were there not a
> previous condition, but it seems sort of "odd" to me, though I can't say
> exactly why. My concern is in picking a syntax where it's obvious the
> is some relation between the two conditions to somebody who might not
> have carefully poured through all the documentation.
I think having the && implicit would be better:
"condition"
"reload_completed"
(and obviously if the second condtion is "", the gen* would translate it to 1).
--
Michael Meissner, Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work: meissner@redhat.com phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org fax: +1 978-692-4482