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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GIMPLE nodes to ASM by using builtins

When you mean scheduling of the instruction, does it mean that the register allocation for ASM is not that advanced than it is for a builtin ? For instance the use of register classes, for the instruction.

I basically would like to translate a gimple node which holds information about a feature which is handle as an assembly instruction in my target architecture. One gimple node or field maps directly into an assembly instruction.

T.

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Thomas A.M. Bernard" <tbernard@science.uva.nl> writes:

What would be the difference by using an ASM ?
The gcc internals is not totally clear about it.

Please reply to the mailing list, not just to me. Thanks.

I don't know what you really want to do.  However, if you want to
directly generate assembler code, then using an asm seems appropriate
to me.  The main reason to use a builtin function would be to get
better scheduling of the instruction.  That would require you to
describe the instructions in the MD file.

Ian

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