Thank's for your response,
Sunday, 5. Juni 2005 04:16 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > The condition-code re-use issue is the point, where, IMO, the link to the
> > subreg-lowering 2.) shows up. After, e.g., breaking down a HI mode "sub"
> > operation into two QI mode "sub" and "sub-with-carry"s at exp
Björn Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Concerning 1.) Ian Lance Taylor has made a couple of suggestions on how to
> make the transition easier for the back-end maintainers. So it seems that
> there is already some activity around.
In fact Hans-Peter Nilsson is implementing code to support th
Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 15:04 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > (parallel [
> > (use (operands[0]))
> > (set (operands[0]) (minus:HI (operands[1]) (operands[2]))
> > (note "please delete the entire embracing parallel instruction before
> > register life-time analysis by a new pass: It pretends to use
The condition-code re-use issue is the point, where, IMO, the link to the
subreg-lowering 2.) shows up. After, e.g., breaking down a HI mode "sub"
operation into two QI mode "sub" and "sub-with-carry"s at expand, I consider
it to be extremely difficult to make the mid-end smart enough to identif
Hi,
During the last weeks I have experimented a bit with the AVR back-end. IMO
there presently are two areas where it is worth to concentrating efforts on:
1.) cc0 -> CCmode transition
2.) splitting of HI- and SI-mode operations so that the RTL finally gets some
similarity with the actually exis
