GIMPLE nodes to ASM by using builtins

[Thomas A.M. Bernard]

When you mean scheduling of the instruction, does it mean that the 
register allocation for ASM is not that advanced than it is for a 
builtin ? For instance the use of register classes, for the instruction.

I basically would like to translate a gimple node which holds 
information about a feature which is handle as an assembly instruction 
in my target architecture. One gimple node or field maps directly into 
an assembly instruction.

T.

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Thomas A.M. Bernard" <tbernard@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>   
>> What would be the difference by using an ASM ?
>> The gcc internals is not totally clear about it.
>>     
>
> Please reply to the mailing list, not just to me.  Thanks.
>
> I don't know what you really want to do.  However, if you want to
> directly generate assembler code, then using an asm seems appropriate
> to me.  The main reason to use a builtin function would be to get
> better scheduling of the instruction.  That would require you to
> describe the instructions in the MD file.
>
> Ian
>