From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-487056-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 54510 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2018 21:12:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 54214 invoked by uid 89); 5 Oct 2018 21:12:54 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*u:52.6.0, H*UA:52.6.0
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:12:53 +0000
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C75D65871;	Fri,  5 Oct 2018 21:12:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from topor.usersys.redhat.com (unused-10-15-17-214.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.214])	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091285C225;	Fri,  5 Oct 2018 21:12:51 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3][IRA,LRA] Fix PR86939, IRA incorrectly creates an interference between a pseudo register and a hard register
To: Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jeffrey Law <law@redhat.com>
References: <db00fba8-f392-510f-7f75-31dd1eed6f87@linux.ibm.com> <616affd5-5140-8e15-9081-1635f7d4e700@redhat.com> <ecabd78d-892c-a82d-7c06-a49e2620ecf7@linux.ibm.com> <CAMe9rOpquvvTAQWYNYHU-aFSK4WpSK8ksBzkHyp82Txgo+9f3A@mail.gmail.com> <6ff45a7e-2415-2d18-1d53-5a50964a2174@linux.ibm.com> <CAMe9rOq9N_6xwYz8ztNRonGfxXqPcfaFHG-X_kBKPvzpSMpJ=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOqtX=3k2Crfpn1VzVg1ZKAfxC0eb94bL-Et2306iYRzHw@mail.gmail.com> <efe8635e-c31f-1a46-655f-6dd4faa6e5a8@linux.ibm.com> <a36ca2a1-044e-9fb1-dc31-984b2a3fe7d6@linux.ibm.com> <14bf79ef-9db2-e76b-df10-fcb2574d5ccb@linux.ibm.com> <121ca751-fb38-d7e1-bffd-89df22a2fdd7@redhat.com> <a0aa34c2-180a-70a6-31ce-3a61c7dcdea4@linux.ibm.com> <05a29347-7a39-a1e6-42b8-16c779b97eb5@redhat.com> <c3942f1b-ec49-dfff-72c2-45d22c22b94c@linux.ibm.com>
From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <703aaa46-eac5-63d1-22dc-0cd31a0e840f@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 22:56:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3942f1b-ec49-dfff-72c2-45d22c22b94c@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2

On 10/05/2018 04:00 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 10/5/18 1:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> On 10/05/2018 12:40 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> On 10/4/18 3:01 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>> IMHO, the name copy_insn_p is too common and confusing (we already have
>>>> functions copy_insn and copy_insn_1 in GCC).  The name does not reflect its
>>>> result meaning.  I would call it something like non_conflict_copy_source_reg
>>>> although it is long.
>>> How about is_reg_copy_insn_p() or is_reg_to_reg_copy_p() or ???
>>>
>> Personally I like the first name more.  But it is up to you.  I don't want
>> to bother you anymore.
> It's not a bother, so lets get something we both are ok with.
> How about non_conflicting_reg_copy or non_conflicting_copy_insn?
OK. I like the first name more.