This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: [RFA:] Simplification transformations in semantics.scm
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: dje at transmeta dot com
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 02:40:35 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA:] Simplification transformations in semantics.scm
> From: Doug Evans <email@example.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:52:46 -0800 (PST)
> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> > > How much pain would it be if we continue to disallow
> > > conditions in the left side of `set'?
> > If you mean in (set (reg h-hw RMODE exp1) exp2)
> > then much so, but in (set exp1 exp2) none at all. I think it's
> > currently invalid and should remain so.
> Righto. I _think_ (set (reg h-hw RMODE exp1) exp2) may be ok.
(given exp1 a condition, like (if SI ...))
Yes, it definitely is!