From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11299 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2006 03:56:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 11289 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2006 03:56:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from dair.pair.com (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:56:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 49735 invoked by uid 20157); 16 Feb 2006 03:56:29 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:56:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: DJ Delorie cc: tnt@246tNt.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Design a microcontroller for gcc In-Reply-To: <200602160340.k1G3e9ss000475@greed.delorie.com> Message-ID: References: <43F2666E.70703@246tNt.com> <43F3C6F8.7080007@246tNt.com> <200602160321.k1G3LHVm032715@greed.delorie.com> <200602160340.k1G3e9ss000475@greed.delorie.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, DJ Delorie wrote: > I hope I can stick with my cmp/jmp model and manage them myself still, > though, because there's a LOT of patterns in m32c where the set of > flags affected depends on which alternative you select, and most > patterns affect the flags in some (usually nonorthagonal) way. Unless I'm delirious (it's way past bedtime) I see a m32c port and it's cc0-free. Is there a problem? > Or is gcc going to start putting things between the cmp and jmp? Yes. At least reload wants to do that. The choice a port has is to either have cc-free reload insns (like i386) or keep the cc setter and user combined at least until after reload (cbranch, but you don't have to use the cbranchM4 name; you can do the combination to a cbranch-type insn in the CC user). Not my idea, so it's probably sane. :-) brgds, H-P PS. There may be other choices, but none that caught my attention.