Maybe expand MAX_RECOG_ALTERNATIVES ?

[Greg McGary]

On 05/11/12 16:00, Greg McGary wrote:

> My question is this: does it make sense to double MAX_RECOG_ALTERNATIVES so
> that I can use insn attributes to identify operand signatures, or should I use
> another approach?

After some exploration, I don't see that another approach is even possible.  The
predicates in define_insn_reservation must be statically evaluated by genattrtab,
so I can't use (match_test "...") or (symbol_ref "..."), where "..." is arbitrary
C code.  Is it true that define_insn_reservation predicates can only use boolean
expressions on (eq_attr ...), or am I missing something?

G