On Wed 29 Feb 2012 18:00:19 GMT, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Why can't we have a single insn that deals with the have-neon and
dont-have-neon cases?

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow?

There's one insn for the have-neon case, and one for the don't-have-neon. The expander is necessary to prevent gen_one_cmpldi2 locking recog to a disabled pattern (it caches the recog result, I think).

It would be possible to have the arm.md insn emit NEON instructions, but that's not the usual practice, I think? The neon.md isns could also emit arm/thumb2 instructions, but there's no real point since there are already two different splitters for that.

Andrew

Reply via email to