On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 19:53 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:32:52 -0200
> > 
> > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 19:14 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> > > > 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...
> 
> Sounds great!

What about this?
-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center