Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: optimize and rename virtual register conversion functions
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:20:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <16432.60630.254802.622655@localhost.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040216155533.GI18953@cygbert.vinschen.de>

Corinna Vinschen writes:
 > On Feb 16 10:25, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > Corinna Vinschen writes:
 > >  > Hi,
 > >  > 
 > >  > the functions sh_sh4_register_convert_to_virtual and
 > >  > sh_sh4_register_convert_to_raw are only called once each.  In both
 > >  > cases, the register numbers are already tested for the correct range,
 > >  > before the function is actually called.  Therefore it's possible to
 > >  > optimize the register number tests away from both functions.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Also, I'd like to propose to rename both functions to get rid of the
 > >  > "sh4" in the name.  The functions are universal so I'd like to reuse
 > >  > them for an upcoming SH variant with different virtual register numbering,
 > >  > if that's ok.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > Can you elaborate a bit about this new SH variant?
 > 
 > It will introduce a couple of new real registers which requires to
 > increment the pseudo double precision register numbers.  At the moment
 > I can't go into too much detail otherwise.
 > 
 > > Is the test in the
 > > function conflicting with a different test for the new variant? 
 > 
 > Actually, it was a thinko on my side.  The new variant will result
 > in incrementing SH_NUM_REGS but when I sent this patch, I was still
 > using another register count for this very cpu.  Therefore, the
 > register test is only superfluous, nothing else.  It does not conflict
 > with anything.
 > 
 > So, if you think that the test should be kept in that function, that's
 > fine with me.  The only remaining bit is the naming of the function then. 
 > The new cpu is not a sh4 type, but it's using the same pseudo register
 > functions as the sh4.  The function would just not be sh4 specific anymore.


Ok, thanks. Just rename the function for now, we can revisit later.

elena



  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-16 16:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-10 16:14 Corinna Vinschen
2004-02-10 16:17 ` Corinna Vinschen
2004-02-16 15:29 ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-16 15:55   ` Corinna Vinschen
2004-02-16 16:20     ` Elena Zannoni [this message]
2004-02-16 16:52       ` Corinna Vinschen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=16432.60630.254802.622655@localhost.redhat.com \
    --to=ezannoni@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox