> Yes. Though I do wonder why you are avoiding using the normal libcall
> machinery. If all you really care about is changing the function name, then
> all you need to do is modify the appropriate optab. See, for instance,
> arm_init_libfuncs.
I guess both could work. I had seen the TARGET_INIT
On 09/01/2009 03:20 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
First off: does this seem correct?
Yes. Though I do wonder why you are avoiding using the normal libcall
machinery. If all you really care about is changing the function name,
then all you need to do is modify the appropriate optab. See
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> In regard to what you said, do you mean I should build the tree before
> the expand pass, by writing a new pass that will work on the trees
> instead of rtx?
Oh, sorry, I'm an idiot. I forgot that you only have RTL at this point.
I would go with what you wrote
Finally, I guess the one thing I can do is simply generate
pseudo_registers and copy all my registers into the pseudos before the
call I make.
Then I do my expand like I showed above.
And finally, move everything back.
Later passes will remove anything that was not needed, anything that
was will
I don't think I quite understand what you're meaning. I want to use
the standard ABI, basically I want to transform certain operations
into function calls.
In regard to what you said, do you mean I should build the tree before
the expand pass, by writing a new pass that will work on the trees
inst
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> First off: does this seem correct?
Awkward though it is, it may be more reliable to build a small tree here
and pass it to expand_call. This assumes that you want to use the
standard ABI when calling this function.
Then your second issue would go away.
Ian
Actually, what I've done is probably something in between what you
were suggesting and what I was initially doing. If we consider the
multiplication, I've modified the define_expand for example to:
(define_expand "muldi3"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "")
(mult:DI (match_o
I have looked at how other targest use the
init_builtins/expand_builtins. Of course, I don't understand
everything there but it seems indeed to be more for generating a
series of instructions instead of a function call. I haven't seen
anything resembling what I want to do.
I had also first thought
Jean Christophe Beyler writes:
> I have been also been looking into how to generate a function call for
> certain operations. I've looked at various other targets for a similar
> problem/solution but have not seen anything. On my target
> architecture, we have certain optimized versions of the mu
Dear all,
I have been also been looking into how to generate a function call for
certain operations. I've looked at various other targets for a similar
problem/solution but have not seen anything. On my target
architecture, we have certain optimized versions of the multiplication
for example.
I w
10 matches
Mail list logo
