On 22/11/11 19:06, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 05:38 PM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>> But I still want to know why we don't want to support this? I don't see any
>> GCC documentation saying not allowing this usage.
>
> Before reload, which_alternative doesn't make much sense, yet you compu
On 11/21/2011 05:38 PM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> But I still want to know why we don't want to support this? I don't see any
> GCC documentation saying not allowing this usage.
Before reload, which_alternative doesn't make much sense, yet you compute it
anyway. After reload, but for raw define_spl
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:55 AM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Use which_alternative in preparation-statements of
> define_insn_and_split
>
On 11/20/2011 07:34 PM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find which_alternative can't really be used in preparation-statements of
> define_insn_and_split, so can this be fixed like below?
>
> For example, I want to use which_alternative in the pattern below,
>
> (define_insn_and_split "*thumb2_m
