Re: Register constraints + and =

["Paulo J. Matos" <paulo at matos-sorge dot com>]

On 04/05/12 19:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> The i386 rep_movqi insn is an example:
>
> (define_insn "*rep_movqi"
>    [(set (match_operand:P 2 "register_operand" "=c") (const_int 0))
>     (set (match_operand:P 0 "register_operand" "=D")
>          (plus:P (match_operand:P 3 "register_operand" "0")
> 		(match_operand:P 5 "register_operand" "2")))
>     (set (match_operand:P 1 "register_operand" "=S")
>          (plus:P (match_operand:P 4 "register_operand" "1") (match_dup 5)))
>     (set (mem:BLK (match_dup 3))
> 	(mem:BLK (match_dup 4)))
>     (use (match_dup 5))]
>    "!(fixed_regs[CX_REG] || fixed_regs[SI_REG] || fixed_regs[DI_REG])"
>    "%^rep{%;} movsb"
>    [(set_attr "type" "str")
>     (set_attr "prefix_rep" "1")
>     (set_attr "memory" "both")
>     (set_attr "mode" "QI")])

Thanks for the discussion on this which was enlightening.
The rep_movqi rule seems scarily like our block copy instruction.
By looking at it, the question that arises is, why the (use (match_dup 
5))? I thought this was used to tell gcc that an operand was going to be 
used in a way not specified by the rtl but operand 5 is specified 
elsewhere in the rtl so gcc doesn't seem to need that (use ...) rule. Is 
this redundant or not?

--
PMatos