> On Jul 6, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>
> Double empty line.
>
> OK otherwise, thanks. (Think this counts as a gen* patch.)
>
> Richard
Thanks. Committed as shown below.
paul
ChangeLog:
2018-07-06 Paul Koning
* doc/md.texi (define_split): Docume
On 07/06/2018 10:20 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Paul Koning writes:
>> @@ -8615,6 +8639,34 @@ so here's a silly made-up example:
>>"")
>> @end smallexample
>>
>> +There are two special macros defined for use in the preparation statements:
>> +@code{DONE} and @code{FAIL}. Use them with a
Paul Koning writes:
> @@ -8615,6 +8639,34 @@ so here's a silly made-up example:
>"")
> @end smallexample
>
> +There are two special macros defined for use in the preparation statements:
> +@code{DONE} and @code{FAIL}. Use them with a following semicolon,
> +as a statement.
> +
> +@table @c
Thanks Richard. Some comments, and an updated proposed patch.
paul
> On Jul 6, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>
> ...
>> @@ -8232,6 +8256,15 @@ functionality as two separate @code{define_insn} a
>> patterns. It exists for compactness, and as a maintenance tool to preve
Paul Koning writes:
> Currently DONE and FAIL are documented only for define_expand, but
> they also work in essentially the same way for define_split and
> define_peephole2.
>
> If FAIL is used in a define_insn_and_split, the output pattern cannot
> be the usual "#" dummy value.
>
> This patch up
Currently DONE and FAIL are documented only for define_expand, but they also
work in essentially the same way for define_split and define_peephole2.
If FAIL is used in a define_insn_and_split, the output pattern cannot be the
usual "#" dummy value.
This patch updates the doc to describe those
