Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: >> > * cris, m68k, pdp11, and vax actually use "g". >> > >> > So it won't be all that much work to completely get rid of "g". >> > Do we want that? >> >> Is it simply a matter of replacing “g” by “mri”? That’s what the doc >> suggests. Or is there more to the story than that? > > As far as I know "g" and "rmi" are equivalent, yes. "g" is easier to > type and read if you use it a lot (only ancient targets really); the > compiler will probably become somewhat slower for those targets, and > perhaps somewhat faster for all others. Hard to say without doing the > work and measuring the result :-)
FWIW, I had a follow-on patch that created the recog_op_alt data at build time and made the constraints field of that structure point to CONSTRAINT_* bytes rather than raw strings. That involved converting "g" to "rmi" like you say and also meant adding CONSTRAINT_*s for "#" and "?". (Other non-operand characters can be dropped since the information is given directly in the recog_op_alt.) It didn't really seem to be much of a win though. Richard
