This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- To: Alan Lehotsky <lehotsky at tiac dot net>
- Subject: Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- From: Clinton Popetz <cpopetz at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:05:59 -0600
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <10003161332.AA24877@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <p04310106b4f6968ba458@[192.168.1.254]>
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:50:15AM -0500, Alan Lehotsky wrote:
> At 8:32 -0500 3/16/00, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > (define_insn_and_split "name"
> > ...normal insn...
> > [split pattern]
> > "split condition"
> > "split preparation statements"
> > )
> >
> >I like this idea.
> >
> > I'd also like it to grok "* condition" for the split condition, which
> > means "append condition to whatever condition was in the insn" so that
> > the common case of:
> >
> >I like this idea too, but don't like using '*' since it has other meanings
> >in the MD file already. How about '|' or '^'?
>
>
> Don't use any character that could be a prefix operator!
>
> The period would be okay (although not very legible). How
> about '%'. It's big, it's obvious and it's an illegal
> unary operator AFAIK.
Actually, since I can do lookahead, how about:
"condition"
"&& reload_completed"
That seems to better reflect the actual relationship of the two conditions.
-Clint