I would think pmode_register_operand is correct. Then, condition can be
removed.
Dave
On 2015-06-30 4:53 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I have a series of patches to convert all non-optab instructions to
the target-insns.def interface. config-list.mk showed up one problem
though. The pa indirect_jump pattern is:
;;; Hope this is only within a function...
(define_insn "indirect_jump"
[(set (pc) (match_operand 0 "register_operand" "r"))]
"GET_MODE (operands[0]) == word_mode"
"bv%* %%r0(%0)"
[(set_attr "type" "branch")
(set_attr "length" "4")])
so the C condition depends on operands[], which isn't usually allowed
for named patterns. We get away with it at the moment because we only
test for the existence of HAVE_indirect_jump, not its value:
/* Generate code to indirectly jump to a location given in the rtx LOC. */
void
emit_indirect_jump (rtx loc ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
#ifndef HAVE_indirect_jump
sorry ("indirect jumps are not available on this target");
#else
struct expand_operand ops[1];
create_address_operand (&ops[0], loc);
expand_jump_insn (CODE_FOR_indirect_jump, 1, ops);
emit_barrier ();
#endif
}
but I think testing HAVE_indirect_jump (-> targetm.have_indirect_jump ())
is more correct.
Would it be OK to remove the operands[] condition? Or should/could it be a
pmode_register_operand instead of a register_operand?
Thanks,
Richard
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
