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: Combine or peephole?

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: Frank Isamov <frank dot isamov at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:34 -0700
Subject: Re: Combine or peephole?
References: <u2ub64cfdca1004190558w94981583j2d9cf57a2b3dc620@mail.gmail.com> <4BCC6E97.3050902@redhat.com> <i2tb64cfdca1004202339pa829785asf5aa692f5b3330f1@mail.gmail.com> <l2wb64cfdca1004202342sdccc5dd9wb511d12b55e4c41f@mail.gmail.com>

Frank Isamov <frank.isamov@gmail.com> writes:

>  1. Is it possible to add a machine dependent reorg pass at backend
>  level without changing the standard infrastructure? If so, can you
>  please point me such example? If no, may the new plugin architecture
>  help here?

See TARGET_MACHINE_DEPENDENT_REORG.

>  2. A peephole for such case just repeats instruction definition
>  pattern. As all information already available for such peephole,
>  wouldnât it be useful to implement the pass to be a part of the
>  standard infrastructure?

See define_peephole and define_peephole2.  If that doesn't answer your
question, can you rephrase it?

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Combine or peephole?
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Combine or peephole?
  - From: Frank Isamov

References:
- Combine or peephole?
  - From: Frank Isamov
- Re: Combine or peephole?
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: Combine or peephole?
  - From: Frank Isamov

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