On 2012-10-17 10:31, Joern Rennecke wrote: > - What would a good naming scheme be? > - Change the semantics of the HAVE_pattern macros for officially named > patterns so that they are defined as 0 when the pattern is not provided? > That choice would actually force people to change #ifdef into if (), > without the possibility of #if, where targets can have non-constant > pattern predicates.
I'm preferential for this, because that's what I've tended to sprinkle across the sources as needed when writing new code: #ifndef HAVE_foo # define HAVE_foo 0 # define gen_foo(x,y,z) (gcc_unreachable(), NULL_RTX) #endif > - Have_pattern? > - have_pattern? > - any other preferences? I don't see any reason to stray from HAVE_pattern. > - how do we get the list of 'official' named patterns? > - We could have a header file that is maintained by hand, with a string > of #ifdef / #define / #endif . This could be trivially integrated with genopinit and optabs.def, if we cared to do so. I'm not committed to that idea though. r~
