This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[RFA] Which is better? More and simplier patterns? Fewer patternswith more embedded code?
- From: Matt Thomas <matt at 3am-software dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:45:46 -0700
- Subject: [RFA] Which is better? More and simplier patterns? Fewer patternswith more embedded code?
Back when I modified gcc 2.95.3 to produce PIC code for NetBSD/vax, I changed
the patterns in vax.md to be more specific with the instructions that got
matched. The one advantage (to me as the writer) was it made it much easier
to track down what pattern caused what instruction to be emitted.
For instance:
(define_insn "*pushal"
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "push_operand" "=g")
(match_operand:SI 0 "address_operand" "p"))]
""
"pushal %a1")
I like the more and simplier patterns approach but I'm wondering what
the general recommendation is?
--
Matt Thomas email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.