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

Elena Zannoni
2004-02-16T16:21:28Z

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.