On Fri, 11 May 2012, Greg McGary wrote: > On 05/11/12 16:00, Greg McGary wrote: > > > My question is this: does it make sense to double MAX_RECOG_ALTERNATIVES so > > that I can use insn attributes to identify operand signatures, or should I > > use > > another approach? > > After some exploration, I don't see that another approach is even possible. > The > predicates in define_insn_reservation must be statically evaluated by > genattrtab, > so I can't use (match_test "...") or (symbol_ref "..."), where "..." is > arbitrary > C code. Is it true that define_insn_reservation predicates can only use > boolean > expressions on (eq_attr ...), or am I missing something?
Seeing this hasn't been replied to yet, I can't help but stating the obvious: handle it like MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS. Trivially, just count the commas (the alternatives) in define_insn and friends. (I don't think commas are allowed in constraints; if they are, you may have to restrict the new max to targets using define_constraint and friends and let the others stay with 30.) Patches are welcome but be prepared for a lengthy ping session as always. :/ brgds, H-P
