From patchwork Sat Sep 15 02:23:03 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-Patchwork-Id: 184060 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FD1F2C0086 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:23:20 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1348280601; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence: List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=gLWku1sLt8M5EBRJM3LhE0rbGEE=; b=RcB903zQ7w507fw FQ8xMkPCHBiDAjT2e6xdCLU3/uWXrRCS/stu5RzIpjpd54Jq3CgPqDzJkkxLkfDo TzdPZ9Kw//0YBTTF7BKOm4DeqwKIasZF6Cif2SW3LVL9OWvJkggmid1J+paOeu7j dagHuIFoZ9exfaAZRqFrQdN7/6UY= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=HTgn9tU1yTJN6t57Oiq72showAMSiOSTiFpPZd8fHlXCnYrKhO/B5BzvOW0ygb Jeo+BfOVDdblciUM5IYzFidEhZWerjx/oSUcwNTS8WO4HjRQawd10o0zY7ymPGvy PzOhuNEGGrqjruA54GsbKBdqwFYQ8nKwWm0py/KT7v/Bs=; Received: (qmail 22842 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2012 02:23:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 22834 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2012 02:23:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, KHOP_THREADED, MEDICAL_SUBJECT, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from dair.pair.com (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:23:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 96578 invoked by uid 20157); 15 Sep 2012 02:23:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Sep 2012 02:23:03 -0000 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:23:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: Nathan Froyd cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH,mmix] convert to constraints.md In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1615878891.297287.1347440193218.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > > - Keeping old layout of "mmix_reg_or_8bit_operand". That looked like > > > a spurious change and I prefer the ior construct to the > > > if_then_else. > > > > ISTR without this change, there were lots of assembly changes like: > I'll try with your original patch and see it I can spot > something. Nope, I see no differences in the generated code before/after the patch-patch below (applied to your original patch, except edited as if using --no-prefix, to fit with my other patches). Case closed: I don't think gen* mishandled neither construct. brgds, H-P --- patch.nathanorig.adjusted 2012-09-12 12:33:34.000000000 +0200 +++ patch3 2012-09-14 14:42:31.000000000 +0200 @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ diff --git a/gcc/config/mmix/predicates. index b5773b8..7fa3bf1 100644 --- gcc/config/mmix/predicates.md +++ gcc/config/mmix/predicates.md -@@ -149,7 +149,13 @@ +@@ -149,7 +149,14 @@ ;; True if this is a register or an int 0..255. (define_predicate "mmix_reg_or_8bit_operand" @@ -372,9 +372,10 @@ index b5773b8..7fa3bf1 100644 - (match_operand 0 "register_operand") - (and (match_code "const_int") - (match_test "CONST_OK_FOR_LETTER_P (INTVAL (op), 'I')")))) -+ (if_then_else (match_code "const_int") -+ (match_test "satisfies_constraint_I (op)") -+ (match_operand 0 "register_operand"))) ++ (ior ++ (match_operand 0 "register_operand") ++ (and (match_code "const_int") ++ (match_test "satisfies_constraint_I (op)")))) + +;; True if this is a memory address, possibly strictly. +