On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Daniel Santos <daniel.san...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> int_registers_saved = (frame.nregs == 0); >>> sse_registers_saved = (frame.nsseregs == 0); >>> + save_stub_call_needed = (m->call_ms2sysv); >>> + gcc_assert (!(!sse_registers_saved && save_stub_call_needed)); >> Oooh, double negation :( > > I'm just saying that we shouldn't be saving SSE registers inline and via > the stub. If I followed the naming convention of e.g., > "see_registers_saved" then my variable would end up being called > "save_stub_called" which would be incorrect and misleading, similar to > how "see_registers_saved" is misleading when there are in fact no SSE > register that need to be saved. Maybe I should rename > (int|sse)_registers_saved to (int|sse)_register_saves_needed with > inverted logic instead. But, we can just say gcc_assert (sse_registers_saved || !save_stub_call_needed); No? Uros.
