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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
