Hi Kyrylo, Richard, > What would be the function of (set_attr "ds_predicable" "yes") ? > Doesn't the use of <ds_predicable_enabled> already trigger the substitution? To use define subst one doesn't need to write (set_attr "ds_predicable" "yes") - it's triggered by mentioning any of connected subst-attributes in the pattern.
> ... But I'd like to keep using the > "predicable" attribute > the way it's used now to mark patterns for cond_exec'ednes. If you decide to move to define_subst from cond_exec, then I'd suggest to avoid using 'predicable' attribute - it could involve cond_exec after or before define_subst and that's definitely not what you might want to get. If you describe in more details, which patterns you're trying to get from which, I'll try to help with define_subst. Thanks, Michael On 23 May 2013 12:56, Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> No, define_subst works across patterns, keyed by attributes. Exactly >> like >> cond_exec, really. >> >> But what you ought to be able to do right now is >> >> (define_subst "ds_predicable" >> [(match_operand 0)] >> "" >> [(cond_exec (blah) (match_dup 0))]) >> >> (define_subst_attr "ds_predicable_enabled" "ds_predicable" "no" "yes"0 >> >> (define_insn "blah" >> [(blah)] >> "" >> "@ >> blah >> blah" >> [(set_attr "ds_predicable" "yes") >> (set_attr "ds_predicated" "<ds_predicable_enabled>")]) > > What would be the function of (set_attr "ds_predicable" "yes") ? > Doesn't the use of <ds_predicable_enabled> already trigger the substitution? > >> >> At which point you can define "enabled" in terms of ds_predicated plus >> whatever. >> >> With a small bit of work we ought to be able to move that ds_predicated >> attribute to the define_subst itself, so that you don't have to >> replicate that >> set_attr line N times. > > That would be nice. So we would have to use define_subst instead of > define_cond_exec > to generate the cond_exec patterns. But I'd like to keep using the > "predicable" attribute > the way it's used now to mark patterns for cond_exec'ednes. > > So you'd recommend changing the define_subst machinery to handle that > ds_predicated attribute? > > > I think that's more or less what you were >> suggesting >> with your cond_exec extension, yes? > > Pretty much, yes. Thanks for the explanation. > >> >> >> >> r~ > -- --- Best regards, Michael V. Zolotukhin, Software Engineer Intel Corporation.
