This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] add split condition to *fix_trunchi_1

From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <uros at kss-loka dot si>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:37:56 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add split condition to *fix_trunchi_1
References: <4191C131.1000307@kss-loka.si> <87bre640t2.fsf@codesourcery.com><20041113011154.GG20658@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:31:53PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> > -  ""
>> > +  "&& 1"
>> 
>> Aren't these functionally identical?  If not, why not?
>
> "Because".
>
> The first form specifies an unconditional split, and the second
> effectively copies the condition from the insn.

Notational concerns aside, I'm not sure how they can be functionally
different.  If the insn is never generated, I don't see how it matters
whether the splitter is unconditional.

zw

References:
- [PATCH] add split condition to *fix_trunchi_1
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: [PATCH] add split condition to *fix_trunchi_1
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: [PATCH] add split condition to *fix_trunchi_1
  - From: Richard Henderson

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