From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1658F3858D1E for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1658F3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1681838436; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=DQUcAHGuZMqcmfkLRxOhevn29gVfLolVupjkPtDiMnk=; b=BP3+cALxyBJiqjgY+4Lp+K3lyjFMwUTAY8T8HqOktqjl8ZT059fzs0Y0wL4S2JPonUaP+o 493Xw+PHGjrOAovAWfxkIA3uifLyz66QV2Cfl/wiIUcAp2PpjdLVmigcHt8c1xfcN5xWBD CtKAJuoARlPpyr8G5jaNXtO0pZcBpFg= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-1-lM6GiHpIPbi1XezROJwHqg-1; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:20:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: lM6GiHpIPbi1XezROJwHqg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9693185A78F; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.194.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73D452166B26; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 33IHKWN8146176 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:20:32 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 33IHKVUY146175; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:20:31 +0200 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:20:31 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Uros Bizjak Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce VIRTUAL_REGISTER_P and VIRTUAL_REGISTER_NUM_P predicates Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 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. Jakub