This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: roy rosen <roy dot 1rosen at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 07:47:52 -0400
- Subject: Re: define_split
- References: <AANLkTinXSp9FefVHXWMm1FL-A040r+1wzoi1juyUuBLemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor <email@example.com>:
That said, this is not a very interesting use of splits these days and
it could probably be removed without doing any noticeable harm. These
days most people just write the complex pattern using define_insn, and
then write a define_split (or a define_insn_and_split) which splits up
the insn just before register allocation or just before instruction
Although such patterns are justified in some cases, adding them willy-nilly
can make your port worse, if such patterns that need to be split into
multiple insns are generated by rtl passes from simpler instructions
to increase the total instruction count after splitting, or when they
hide scheduling opportunities.
combine-split patterns are still the pattern of choice when you want to
prevent the whole pattern tfrom being considered a single instruction.