Re: [PATCH] Introduce VIRTUAL_REGISTER_P and VIRTUAL_REGISTER_NUM_P predicates

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 08:53:42AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> 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.

Please do.  HARD_REGISTER_NUM_P obviously needs to keep it.

	Jakub