On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:53:52AM +0200, Roland Persson wrote:
> I've been trying patterns like this one:
>
> (define_insn "*pip_add_di_sesi"
> [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> (plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "r")
> (sign_extend:DI (
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 19:25
> To: Roland Persson
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Matching of non-standard instructions
>
>
> In a
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 04:16:28PM +0200, Roland Persson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My target has some instructions that do not exactly match any predefined
> pattern names. What is the correct way to get gcc to use them in code
> generation?
Please see http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Patterns.html>.
"Roland Persson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, I have an add instruction that can add a 32-bit integer (with
> or without sign extension) to a 64-bit operand and store the result as 64
> bits.
>
> C code like:
> __int64_t a = 1;
> int b = 2;
> a += b;
>
> will generate code that sig
Hi,
My target has some instructions that do not exactly match any predefined
pattern names. What is the correct way to get gcc to use them in code
generation?
For example, I have an add instruction that can add a 32-bit integer (with
or without sign extension) to a 64-bit operand and store the re
