This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: peephole vs. scheduler
- To: dalej at apple dot com
- Subject: Re: peephole vs. scheduler
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:27:55 -0400
- cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
>>>>> dalej writes:
Dale> I have a case where I'd like to combine two insn's into one late in the
Dale> game. I have a nice short define_peephole that does just what I
Dale> want.[*]
Dale> [*] I tried various combinations of define_insn, define_expand and
Dale> define_split without success. Possibly I'm missing something; details
Dale> available on request [probably Wed.], but they don't affect the main
Dale> point here.
If you are considering define_peephole, define_insn, and
define_expand, are you sure that you want a GCC-style peephole and not a
combiner pattern?
David