On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> This idiom: "if (GET_CODE (body) == ASM_INPUT || asm_noperands (body) >> >> >= 0)" appears in multiple places. There's even one place where the >> >> idiom above is used in reverse (making the GET_CODE... check >> redundant). A few more places to the equivalent by checking >> extract_asm_operands != NULL. > > I think that the last point is not clear: asm_noperands can return -1 and yet > extract_asm_operands has returned non-NULL.
Hmm, what do you have in mind for such a situation? If extract_asm_operands returns NULL then asm_noperands will return -1. If extract_asm_operands returns non-NULL then asm_noperands deep-dives the PATTERN of the insn (just like extract_asm_operands) and returns >= 0 unless the insn is invalid. Also, lots of places check only asm_noperands to see if an insn is an asm, see cse.c, reload1.c, cprop.c, etc. Am I missing something? Ciao! Steven
