It's been a long time since I dealt with this aspect of porting, but
isn't it the case that most ports don't expose branch-on-carry-set
branch-on-carry-clear? It looks like the mn103 was recently changed to
not use cc0, which is definitely a good thing. I'm not sure offhand the
best way to recode
On 08/09/10 07:28, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I'm looking at the remaining text peepholes (define_peephole instead
of define_peephole2) and I have a few questions about mn10300, that
you are a maintainer of.
I've been out on FMLA, so sorry for the late response...
The first peephole is
On 08/09/2010 06:28 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I would like to convert these remaining define_peepholes to
> define_peephole2s instead. However, I can't find a define_insn that
> produces the bcs or bcc instructions. Could use a little help figuring
> out what insn I should generate in the peepho
Hi Jeff,
I'm looking at the remaining text peepholes (define_peephole instead
of define_peephole2) and I have a few questions about mn10300, that
you are a maintainer of.
The first peephole is this:
;; Try to combine consecutive updates of the stack pointer (or any
;; other register for that mat
