From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53778-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20454 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 18:14:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 20445 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 18:14:26 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:14:07 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0UIE18E022793; 	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:14:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m0UIE006010057; 	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:14:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:21:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200801301814.m0UIE006010057@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: bauerman@br.ibm.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <1201705759.11950.228.camel@localhost.localdomain> (message from 	Thiago Jung Bauermann on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:09:19 -0200)
Subject: Re: [RFA] Put SPE verification in macro.
References:  <1201705759.11950.228.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00810.txt.bz2

> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:09:19 -0200
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This patch is a small cleanup which makes my revised version of the DFP
> pseudo-registers patch more readable. I put the mantra used to check if
> a given register number is an SPE pseudo-register in a macro and used it
> whenever possible.
> 
> The only case the macro isnt't a direct replacement was this:
> 
> @@ -179,9 +184,7 @@ spe_register_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>    struct gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep (gdbarch);
> 
>    /* Is it a reference to EV0 -- EV31, and do we have those?  */
> -  if (tdep->ppc_ev0_regnum >= 0
> -      && tdep->ppc_ev31_regnum >= 0
> -      && tdep->ppc_ev0_regnum <= regno && regno <=
> tdep->ppc_ev31_regnum)
> +  if (IS_SPE_PSEUDOREG (tdep, regno))
>      return 1;
> 
> 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?