This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Use which_alternative in preparation-statements of define_insn_and_split
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Jiangning Liu <jiangning dot liu at arm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:06:29 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Use which_alternative in preparation-statements of define_insn_and_split
- References: <000101cca7fe$83c35490$8b49fdb0$@liu@arm.com> <4ECAE4EF.8080102@redhat.com> <000b01cca8b7$689134d0$39b39e70$@liu@arm.com>
On 11/21/2011 05:38 PM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> But I still want to know why we don't want to support this? I don't see any
> GCC documentation saying not allowing this usage.
Before reload, which_alternative doesn't make much sense, yet you compute it anyway. After reload, but for raw define_split, which_alternative doesn't make much sense, yet you compute it anyway.
Now, either or both are fixable, but instead it seemed to me like maybe you were going down the wrong path entirely.
r~