1 files changed, 174 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gcc-4.9/gcc/config/mmix/predicates.md b/gcc-4.9/gcc/config/mmix/predicates.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..df5d1f21b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc-4.9/gcc/config/mmix/predicates.md
@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+;; Operand and operator predicates for the GCC MMIX port.
+;; Copyright (C) 2005-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+;; This file is part of GCC.
+;;
+;; GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+;; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+;; the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
+;; any later version.
+;;
+;; GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+;; GNU General Public License for more details.
+;;
+;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+;; along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
+;; <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+
+;; Return 1 if OP is a valid comparison operator for "cbranch" instructions.
+;; LE and GE are further lowered by the cbranchdf4 pattern.
+(define_predicate "float_comparison_operator"
+  (match_code "ne, eq, le, ge, lt, gt, ordered, unordered"))
+
+;; True if this is a foldable comparison operator
+;; - one where a the result of (compare:CC (reg) (const_int 0)) can be
+;; replaced by (reg).  */
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_foldable_comparison_operator"
+  (match_code "ne, eq, ge, gt, le, lt, gtu, leu")
+{
+  RTX_CODE code = GET_CODE (op);
+
+  if (mode == VOIDmode)
+    mode = GET_MODE (op);
+
+  /* This little bit is why the body of this predicate is kept as C.  */
+  if (mode == VOIDmode)
+    mode = GET_MODE (XEXP (op, 0));
+
+  return ((mode == CCmode || mode == DImode)
+	  && (code == NE || code == EQ || code == GE || code == GT
+	      || code == LE || code == LT))
+    /* FIXME: This may be a stupid trick.  What happens when GCC wants to
+       reverse the condition?  Can it do that by itself?  Maybe it can
+       even reverse the condition to fit a foldable one in the first
+       place?  */
+    || (mode == CC_UNSmode && (code == GTU || code == LEU));
+})
+
+;; Like comparison_operator, but only true if this comparison operator is
+;; applied to a valid mode.  Needed to avoid jump.c generating invalid
+;; code with -ffast-math (gcc.dg/20001228-1.c).
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_comparison_operator"
+  (match_operand 0 "comparison_operator")
+{
+  RTX_CODE code = GET_CODE (op);
+
+  /* Comparison operators usually don't have a mode, but let's try and get
+     one anyway for the day that changes.  */
+  if (mode == VOIDmode)
+    mode = GET_MODE (op);
+
+  /* Get the mode from the first operand if we don't have one.
+     Also the reason why we do this in C.  */
+  if (mode == VOIDmode)
+    mode = GET_MODE (XEXP (op, 0));
+
+  /* FIXME: This needs to be kept in sync with the tables in
+     mmix_output_condition.  */
+  return
+    mode == VOIDmode
+    || (mode == CC_FUNmode
+	&& (code == ORDERED || code == UNORDERED))
+    || (mode == CC_FPmode
+	&& (code == GT || code == LT))
+    || (mode == CC_FPEQmode
+	&& (code == NE || code == EQ))
+    || (mode == CC_UNSmode
+	&& (code == GEU || code == GTU || code == LEU || code == LTU))
+    || (mode == CCmode
+	&& (code == NE || code == EQ || code == GE || code == GT
+	    || code == LE || code == LT))
+    || (mode == DImode
+	&& (code == NE || code == EQ || code == GE || code == GT
+	    || code == LE || code == LT || code == LEU || code == GTU));
+})
+
+;; True if this is a register with a condition-code mode.
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_reg_cc_operand"
+  (and (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
+       (ior (match_test "GET_MODE (op) == CCmode")
+	    (ior (match_test "GET_MODE (op) == CC_UNSmode")
+		 (ior (match_test "GET_MODE (op) == CC_FPmode")
+		      (ior (match_test "GET_MODE (op) == CC_FPEQmode")
+			   (match_test "GET_MODE (op) == CC_FUNmode")))))))
+
+;; True if this is an address_operand or a symbolic operand.
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_symbolic_or_address_operand"
+  (match_code "symbol_ref, label_ref, const, subreg, reg, plus")
+{
+  switch (GET_CODE (op))
+    {
+    case SYMBOL_REF:
+    case LABEL_REF:
+      return 1;
+    case CONST:
+      /* The reason why this body still is C.  */
+      op = XEXP (op, 0);
+      if ((GET_CODE (XEXP (op, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF
+	   || GET_CODE (XEXP (op, 0)) == LABEL_REF)
+	  && (GET_CODE (XEXP (op, 1)) == CONST_INT
+	      || (GET_CODE (XEXP (op, 1)) == CONST_DOUBLE
+		  && GET_MODE (XEXP (op, 1)) == VOIDmode)))
+	return 1;
+      /* Fall through.  */
+    default:
+      return mmix_address_operand (op, mode);
+    }
+})
+
+;; True if this is a register or CONST_INT (or CONST_DOUBLE for DImode).
+;; We could narrow the value down with a couple of predicates, but that
+;; doesn't seem to be worth it at the moment.
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_reg_or_constant_operand"
+  (ior (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
+       (ior (match_code "const_int")
+	    (and (match_code "const_double")
+		 (match_test "GET_MODE (op) == VOIDmode")))))
+
+;; True if this is a register or 0 (int or float).
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_reg_or_0_operand"
+  (ior
+   (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
+   (ior
+    (and (match_code "const_int")
+	 (match_test "op == const0_rtx"))
+    (and
+     (match_code "const_double")
+     ;; FIXME: Is mode calculation necessary and correct?
+     (match_test
+      "op == CONST0_RTX (mode == VOIDmode ? GET_MODE (op) : mode)")))))
+
+;; True if this is a register or an int 0..255.
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_reg_or_8bit_operand"
+  (ior
+   (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
+   (and (match_code "const_int")
+	(match_test "satisfies_constraint_I (op)"))))
+
+;; True if this is a memory address, possibly strictly.
+;; See also comment above the "*call_real" pattern.
+
+(define_predicate "mmix_address_operand"
+  (if_then_else (match_test "reload_in_progress || reload_completed")
+    (match_test "strict_memory_address_p (Pmode, op)")
+    (match_test "memory_address_p (Pmode, op)")))
+
+(define_predicate "frame_pointer_operand"
+  (ior
+   (and
+    (match_code "reg")
+    (match_test "op == hard_frame_pointer_rtx || op == frame_pointer_rtx"))
+   (and
+    (match_code "plus")
+    (match_code "reg" "0")
+    (match_code "const_int" "1")
+    (match_test "XEXP (op, 0) == stack_pointer_rtx"))))