Pattern matching for indirect register addressing#87
Open
chbessonova wants to merge 1 commit intoaccess-softek:masterfrom
Open
Pattern matching for indirect register addressing#87chbessonova wants to merge 1 commit intoaccess-softek:masterfrom
chbessonova wants to merge 1 commit intoaccess-softek:masterfrom
Conversation
chbessonova
changed the title
chbessonova
changed the title
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is another implementation for emitting instructions in indirect register addressing mode (just note that indirect register addressing has 2 bytes less encoding than indexed one).
First one was in #66. It provides an MI-level pass which rewrites mm|mr instructions where displacement == 0 to their nm|nr counterpart.
This one is more straightforward. It allows matching correct instruction form on ISel phase. The only drawback it has is that it doesn't work with SP base register.
Will appreciate any feedback for this or/and #66 implementation.