On 4/10/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote on 04/10/07 10:45:
> On 4/10/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steven Bosscher wrote on 04/10/07 02:43:
>>> I don't really like the idea for promoting subcodes to first-level
>>> codes, like you do for GS_COND NE and EQ. Looks complicated and
>>> confusing to me. What is the benefit of this?
>> Mostly, speed of recognition. I'm not totally against dropping this.
>> As Andrew M. mentioned during our internal discussions, we will now have
>> to implement predicates that recognize all the insns in the "GS_COND"
>> family.
>>
>> This is something that we can do some experimentation.
>
> Will this replace the tree code class or is it merely sub-classing and
> the sub-code
> is the real code we have now?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Well, we now have a tcc_comparison for example - is the gimple statement code
something like that? Or will the grouping of gimple statement codes
to code classes
persist? If we were able to encode the class directly in the gimple
statement we
can avoid a memory reference to look up the operands class.
Richard.
