This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 2nd try for patch for automaton based pipeline hazard recognizer (part #1)
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: 2nd try for patch for automaton based pipeline hazard recognizer (part #1)
- From: Jason Eckhardt <jle at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: dann at godzilla dot ICS dot UCI dot EDU, vmakarov at redhat dot com
Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
>But the real question is if people beleive that it's better to have a
>lispish description for the pipelines rather than use a regexp in a
>string, otherwise this discussion is moot...
>
> --dan
>
I've written 3 pipeline descriptions using the new mechanism (the first
descriptions other than Vlad's).
I found the current syntax intuitive, expressive, readable, and most
importantly, compact. My vote is to keep the current syntax.
It might not match the prefix style of other aspects of the .md file,
but I don't consider that a liability given the compactness and
expressiveness. I consider other parts of the whole machine
description mechanism far more lacking in elegance -- for example,
the combination of the .md itself, embedded C code, and the
"macro hell" (TM jeff law) in xyz.h.
jason.