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