On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/20/2011 02:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> +(define_insn "bmi2_umul<mode><dwi>3_1"
>> + [(set (match_operand:<DWI> 0 "register_operand" "=r")
>> + (mult:<DWI>
>> + (zero_extend:<DWI>
>> + (match_operand:DWIH 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "%d"))
>> + (zero_extend:<DWI>
>> + (match_operand:DWIH 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "rm"))))]
>> + "TARGET_BMI
>> + && !(MEM_P (operands[1]) && MEM_P (operands[2]))"
>> + "mulx\t{%2, %M0, %N0|%N0, %M0, %2}"
>> + [(set_attr "type" "imul")
>> + (set_attr "prefix" "vex")
>> + (set_attr "mode" "<MODE>")])
>
> You can do better than this, and avoid the %M %N specifiers.
> The outputs are truly independent and do not need to be a pair.
>
Since RA use register pairs for TImode/DImode, should requiring
TI/DI registers in pairs generate better does?
--
H.J.
