Hi!
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 10:38:13AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >> + [(set (match_operand:<VEC_INT> 0 "vint_operand")
> >> + (match_operator 1 "comparison_operator"
> >
> > If you make an iterator for this instead, it is simpler code (you can then
> > use <code> to do all these cases in one statement).
>
> If my understanding is correct and based on some tries before, I think we
> have to leave these **CASEs** there (at least at the 1st level define_expand
> for vec_cmp*), since vec_cmp* doesn't have <code> field in the pattern name.
> The code can be only extracted from operator 1. I tried to add one dummy
> operand to hold <code> but it's impractical.
>
> Sorry, I may miss something here, I'm happy to make a subsequent patch to
> uniform these cases if there is a good way to run a code iterator on them.
Instead of
[(set (match_operand:VEC_I 0 "vint_operand")
(match_operator 1 "signed_or_equality_comparison_operator"
[(match_operand:VEC_I 2 "vint_operand")
(match_operand:VEC_I 3 "vint_operand")]))]
you can do
[(set (match_operand:VEC_I 0 "vint_operand")
(some_iter:VEC_I (match_operand:VEC_I 1 "vint_operand")
(match_operand:VEC_I 2 "vint_operand")))]
with some_iter some code_iterator, (note you need to renumber), and in the
body you can then just use <code> (or <CODE>, or some other code_attribute).
code_iterator is more flexible than match_operator, in most ways.
Segher
