On Sun, 10 May 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This clearly renames rather than removing the `rlwinm' pattern, please
> > correctly reflect that in ChangeLog. Some other, unnamed patterns are
> > given names rather than deleted as well, just as you've noted at the top.
> > And none of th
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Some cleanups:
>
> * Give every define_insn a name;
> * Add missing conditions for some of the dot forms;
> * Use define_insn_and_split to reduce duplication;
> * Renumber operands so 0,1,2,3 are the actual operands of the machine
> i
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 07:02:33PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > -(define_insn "rlwinm"
> > +(define_insn "*ashlsi3_imm_mask"
> >[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "gpc_reg_operand" "=r")
> > (and:SI (ashift:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "r")
> >(match_operan
On Sun, 10 May 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> * Give every define_insn a name;
> * Add missing conditions for some of the dot forms;
> * Use define_insn_and_split to reduce duplication;
> * Renumber operands so 0,1,2,3 are the actual operands of the machine
> instruction, in order;
> * Reform
Some cleanups:
* Give every define_insn a name;
* Add missing conditions for some of the dot forms;
* Use define_insn_and_split to reduce duplication;
* Renumber operands so 0,1,2,3 are the actual operands of the machine
instruction, in order;
* Reformat some patterns.
Is this okay for trunk?
