On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:46 AM Hongyu Wang <wwwhhhyyy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, the approach is wrong. You have to solve output clearing on RTL
> > level, please look at how e.g. tzcnt false dep is solved:
>
> Actually we have considered such approach before, but we found we need
> to break original define_insn to remove the mask/rounding subst,
> since define_split could not adopt subst, and that would add 6 more
> define_insn_and_split and 4 define_insn for each instruction. We think
> such approach would introduce too much redundant code.
Are there any technical obstacles to introduce subst to
define_{,insn_and_}split?
Uros.
