Re: [PATCH] Introduce VIRTUAL_REGISTER_P and VIRTUAL_REGISTER_NUM_P predicates

[Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 7:20 PM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/rtl.h
> > +++ b/gcc/rtl.h
> > @@ -1972,6 +1972,13 @@ set_regno_raw (rtx x, unsigned int regno, unsigned int nregs)
> >  /* 1 if the given register number REG_NO corresponds to a hard register.  */
> >  #define HARD_REGISTER_NUM_P(REG_NO) ((REG_NO) < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
> >
> > +/* 1 if the given register REG corresponds to a virtual register.  */
> > +#define VIRTUAL_REGISTER_P(REG) (VIRTUAL_REGISTER_NUM_P (REGNO (REG)))
> > +
> > +/* 1 if the given register number REG_NO corresponds to a virtual register.  */
> > +#define VIRTUAL_REGISTER_NUM_P(REG_NO)                                       \
> > +  (IN_RANGE (REG_NO, FIRST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER, LAST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER))
>
> Why the ()s around both definitions?
> IN_RANGE adds its own and anything on top of that is just superfluous.

Mainly to imitate the surrounding code (e.g. HARD_REGISTER_P) that is
quite generous with brackets.

I can remove external brackets from both definitions, but I'd remove
them also from the HARD_REGISTER_P definition.

Uros,