Minor stylistic suggestions...
+ "*
+ switch (which_alternative)
+ {
+ case 0:
+ if (TARGET_A16
+ && GET_CODE (operands[2]) == SYMBOL_REF
+ && far_data_p (operands[2])== 1
+ && near_data_p (operands[2])== 0)
+ return m32c_disp_pattern (insn, operands);
+ else
+ return \"add.w\t%2,%0\";
This should be done by creating a constraint for the first case, and
adding it to the list of constraints. Then we can avoid a huge switch
statement.
+/* Returns TRUE if given tree has the "far" attribute. */
+int
+far_data_p (rtx x)
+{
This function should account for CONST and offsets, so that it need
not be done many times in the *.md files.
+/* Returns TRUE if given tree has the "far" attribute. */
+int
+far_data_a1a0 (rtx x)
+{
These two functions should have different comments, each describing
the specifics of the two functions.
+
+static tree
+far_data_handler (tree * node, tree name,
+ tree args ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+ int flags ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, bool * no_add_attrs)
+{
This function should have a comment too.
+/* Returns TRUE if given tree has the "near" attribute. */
+int
+near_data_p (rtx x)
+{
Likewise for these two.
+/* Copy the constant string from '.rodata' section in far memory to
+ 'data' section in near memory */
"copy from" doesn't describe what this function is doing. "Assign to"
would be better.
+/* Returns the instructions to access array elements using the
+ displacement. */
+char *
+m32c_disp_pattern (rtx insn, rtx * operands)
This giant function is better done as a peephole optimization that
resolves to an UNSPEC pattern for the desired output.
--- /gcc/config/m32c/mov.md 2008-01-15 11:37:37.000000000 +0530
+++ /gcc/config/m32c/mov.md 2008-01-15 17:41:04.000000000 +0530
@@ -30,6 +30,159 @@
;; Match push/pop before mov.b for passing char as arg,
;; e.g. stdlib/efgcvt.c.
+
+;; M16C-20bit Access
+(define_insn "movqildabs_op"
+ [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "mra_nopp_operand" "=Rqi*Rmm")
+ (match_operand:QI 1 "m32c_20babsqi_operand" "Sn"))]
Can these be done with constraints in the generic mov pattern,
instead of a whole separate pattern?
+ else if (GET_CODE (XEXP (operands[1], 0)) == CONST)
+ {
+ a = far_data_p (XEXP (XEXP (XEXP (operands[1], 0), 0), 0));
+ b = near_data_p (XEXP (XEXP (XEXP (operands[1], 0), 0), 0));
Again, this should be moved to far_data_p().
