This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Don't create pseudos after no_new_pseudos on SH
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:51:50 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Don't create pseudos after no_new_pseudos on SH
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:10:34PM +0000, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:51:30PM +0000, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what you're talking about; what's "ashrdi3+3" refer to?
> > > None of the ashrdi3* patterns are called at all in my testcase.
> >
> > When a pattern has no name, it can be referred to by the previous named
> > pattern and an offset that indicates how many patterns further down
> > the md file the referred to pattern is. I.e. ashrdi3+1 is the pattern
> > just after ashrdi3. This is also the notation used by the generater
> > programs when they report error messages.
> >
> > FWIW, I whish there was a way to give all patterns - including splitters -
> > a name, so that we could do away with this fragile naming (these designations
> > shift in meaning when you insert new patterns).
>
> Uch, ditto. Worse, you can't trivially search for these names.
It *is* possible for other than splitters. Make up a name
beginning with "*" and it will be used internally only; no gen_*
is generated. Or maybe I misunderstood.
else?
> It
> would be nice to be able to add name labels for these splitters.
Agreed. Shouldn't be too hard to add that as an optional field,
methinks, since it'd be of different type than the next operand.
brgds, H-P