From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1116 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 18:33:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 1106 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 18:33:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:32:59 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.18.232.109]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60597390153 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:23:57 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m0UIWuZ43932176 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:32:56 -0200 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m0UIWutM025619 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:32:56 -0200 Received: from [9.12.235.82] ([9.12.235.82]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0UIWsTB025568; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:32:55 -0200 Subject: Re: [RFA] Put SPE verification in macro. From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200801301814.m0UIE006010057@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <1201705759.11950.228.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200801301814.m0UIE006010057@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1201717972.11950.255.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00815.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 19:14 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:09:19 -0200 > > > > 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. > > This makes ppc_ev31_regnum completely redundant isn't it? Could you > remove it? Right. Yes, I can remove it. I also noticed that the num_sprs variable in rs6000_gdbarch_init is set to zero and used without any other assignment. I will remove that one as well... -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center