Hi,

This patch is a small cleanup which makes my revised version of the DFP
pseudo-registers patch more readable. I put the mantra used to check if
a given register number is an SPE pseudo-register in a macro and used it
whenever possible.

The only case the macro isnt't a direct replacement was this:

@@ -179,9 +184,7 @@ spe_register_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
   struct gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep (gdbarch);

   /* Is it a reference to EV0 -- EV31, and do we have those?  */
-  if (tdep->ppc_ev0_regnum >= 0
-      && tdep->ppc_ev31_regnum >= 0
-      && tdep->ppc_ev0_regnum <= regno && regno <=
tdep->ppc_ev31_regnum)
+  if (IS_SPE_PSEUDOREG (tdep, regno))
     return 1;

The above code checks if ppc_ev31_regnum is >= 0 and if regno <=
ppc_ev31_regnum. Since ppc_ev31_regnum is set in the same place and
condition that ppc_ev0_regnum is set, and that ppc_ev31_regnum's value
is ppc_ev0_regnum + 31, those checks are equivalent to the ones made by
the new macro.

GDB builds correctly with this patch. Unfortunately I don't have the
means to test it... Ok to commit?
-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center