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: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Subject: Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:05:29 +0000
- Cc: cpopetz at cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: rearnsha at arm dot com
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-To: rearnsha at arm dot com
> 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.
Maybe it would be better if the "glue" were to appear outside of the
double quotes. Eg (though I haven't thought the implications of this
particular syntax through):
+"&& reload_completed"
The plus sign would indicate that the two sets of conditions should be
concatenated together. It would also enable other terms in the
concatenation, eg +"|| some_other_constraint".
Doing it this way would avoid the need to try and parse part of the
contents of the condition string -- which strikes me as error-prone.
R.