Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: optimize fv_reg_base_num and dr_reg_base_num

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Corinna Vinschen writes:
 > On Feb 16 10:28, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > Corinna Vinschen writes:
 > >  > Hi,
 > >  > 
 > >  > another optimization which also will simplify the handling of the
 > >  > upcoming SH variant.
 > >  > 
 > >  > The functions fv_reg_base_num and dr_reg_base_num are basically
 > >  > one-liner.  The expression they evaluate is fairly simple so
 > >  > I'd suggest the following patch.  It converts both functions
 > >  > into macros which will be evaluated inline.  This has the additional
 > >  > advantage, that the functions in which they are called have access
 > >  > to gdbarch, which comes in handy for the new SH variant.
 > >  > 
 > >  > If the conversion into macros is undesired, I'd like to suggest an
 > >  > alternative implementation.  In that case I'd like to add gdbarch as
 > >  > first parameter to both functions.
 > > 
 > > I prefer to not introduce macros here.  Can you explain where you are
 > > headed? This looks like a micro optimization and I don't see the point
 > > of it ATM.
 > 
 > Gosh, I'm so sorry.  I should have cancled this RFA already days ago.
 > This is a result of the same thinko I talked about in my previous
 > mail.  The (blockheaded) idea was to use another SH_NUM_REGS for the
 > new CPU variant than for any other SH type.  I already scratched that
 > but I missed to note that here :-(


Ok, I'll ignore this patch then.