This is the mail archive of the cgen@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the CGEN project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?

To: Greg McGary <greg at mcgary dot org>
Subject: Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, cgen at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <200012012217.PAA04718@kayak.mcgary.org><20001201173254.G20294@redhat.com><msy9xzvgrq.fsf@mcgary.org><msitoxwghs.fsf@mcgary.org><msg0k1wfzh.fsf@mcgary.org>

Greg McGary writes:
 > Doug, does that sound reasonable to you, or are you philosophically
 > opposed to the entire 2/3 operand insn hack?

Could I see the .cpu file in question so I have a clear understanding
of what the problems and issues are and so that I can play with them
myself?

[at this point I don't have enough info to form an opinion]

References:
- defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
  - From: Greg McGary
- Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
  - From: Frank Ch. Eigler
- Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
  - From: Greg McGary
- Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
  - From: Greg McGary
- Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
  - From: Greg McGary

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]