This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: List of simplifications we should perform


Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On May 11, 2001, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
> Kaveh> I think most of these are already done in fold-const.c on
> Kaveh> trees.  How much benefit is there in redoing all the opts on
> Kaveh> RTL?  (Just curious, I'm sure there is some benefit.)
> 
> > I think it would be interesting if these things could be defined via
> > some kind of lisp-like language working at the tree level (which is
> > what, in my naivete, I imagine the RTL plan would amount to).
> 
> In a perfect world, a define_simplify would generate code that could
> simplify trees and rtl.
> 
> > Java has fairly strict rules about what can, cannot, and must be
> > folded.
> 
> Just like define_insn, define_simplify could have conditions, and
> these could include tests about which language is being compiled.

Correct.
This actually works, too.
I'll try to clean up gensimplify, and post it in a few hours.

> 
> -- 
> Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
> CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
> Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

-- 
"My girlfriend does her nails with white-out.  When she's asleep,
I go over there and write misspelled words on them.
"-Steven Wright


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]