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_movsicc_insn"
> [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" "=r,r,r,r,r,r,r,r")
> (if_then_else:SI
> (match_operator 3 "arm_comparison_operator"
> [(match_operand 4 "cc_register" "") (const_int 0)])
> (match_operand:SI 1 "arm_not_operand" "0,0,rI,K,rI,rI,K,K")
> (match_operand:SI 2 "arm_not_operand" "rI,K,0,0,rI,K,rI,K")))]
> "TARGET_THUMB2"
> "@
> it\\t%D3\;mov%D3\\t%0, %2
> it\\t%D3\;mvn%D3\\t%0, #%B2
> it\\t%d3\;mov%d3\\t%0, %1
> it\\t%d3\;mvn%d3\\t%0, #%B1
> ite\\t%d3\;mov%d3\\t%0, %1\;mov%D3\\t%0, %2
> ite\\t%d3\;mov%d3\\t%0, %1\;mvn%D3\\t%0, #%B2
> ite\\t%d3\;mvn%d3\\t%0, #%B1\;mov%D3\\t%0, %2
> ite\\t%d3\;mvn%d3\\t%0, #%B1\;mvn%D3\\t%0, #%B2"
> "&& reload_completed"
> [(cond_exec (match_dup 5)
> (set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 6)))]
> "
> {
> if (which_alternative >= 2 && which_alternative < 4)
> {
> ...
> }
> else if (which_alternative >= 4)
Hmm, I guess. It seems a bit weird.
It seems like you'd be better off *not* using define_insn_and_split, actually,
and instead using more specific tests on the separate define_split than you
would on the define_insn.
I don't feel strongly about it though. I won't object if some other rtl
maintainer wants to approve this.
r~
