(define_insn_and_split "cbranchhi4"
[(set (pc)
(if_then_else
- (match_operator:CC 0 "ordered_comparison_operator"
+ (match_operator 0 "ordered_comparison_operator"
[(match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "r")
(match_operand:HI 2 "picochip_comparison_operand" "ri")])
(label_ref (match_operand 3 "" ""))
"* return picochip_output_cbranch(operands);"
"reload_completed
&& (picochip_schedule_type != DFA_TYPE_NONE || flag_delayed_branch)"
- [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM) (match_dup 0))
- (parallel [(set (pc)
- (if_then_else (match_op_dup:HI 0 [(reg:CC CC_REGNUM) (const_int 0)])
- (label_ref (match_dup 3))
- (pc)))
- (use (match_dup 4))])]
+ [(const_int 0)]
"{
- operands[4] = GEN_INT(GET_CODE(operands[0]));
+ rtx const_int_opnd;
+ const_int_opnd = GEN_INT(GET_CODE(operands[0]));
+ if (picochip_supported_comparison_operator (operands[0], HImode))
+ emit_insn (gen_supported_compare (operands[0], operands[1], operands[2]));
+ else
+ emit_insn (gen_compare (operands[0], operands[1], operands[2]));
+ emit_jump_insn (gen_branch (operands[3], const_int_opnd, operands[0]));
}")
;; The only difference between this and the next pattern is that the next pattern
;; comparison operator and hence this pattern assumes that the second constraint combo
;; would still generate a normal instruction.
-(define_insn "*supported_compare"
+(define_insn "supported_compare"
[(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
(match_operator:CC 0 "picochip_supported_comparison_operator"
[(match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "r,r,r")
(set_attr "length" "2,2,4")
])
-(define_insn "*compare"
+(define_insn "compare"
[(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
(match_operator:CC 0 "comparison_operator"
[(match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "r,r,r")