more flexible sbb/adc patterns

Jan Hubicka jh@suse.cz
Sun Jan 26 19:50:00 GMT 2003


> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 05:53:49PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > ! 	(if_then_else:SI (match_operator 1 "ix86_carry_flag_operator"
> > > ! 			 		 [(reg 17) (const_int 0)])
> > 
> > Why not just use match_operand and check the register/zero
> > bits at the same time?
> 
> I was thinking about that too, but then I convenienced myself that I
> should make it to look same as the rest of patterns do.
> Whats about chaging all of them in separate patch?  It would also make
> named patterns more usefull again.
Perhaps it is better to do it by parts - at least I don't have to kill
the named patterns.  I am working on updated patch.

Honza
> 
> Honza
> > 
> > The rest of it looks sensible.
> > 
> > 
> > r~



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list