On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:55:04PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:49:56PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > > Hi, I have taken a crack at the beginner GCC project mentioned at > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/beginner.html to replace uses of GET_CODE > > > to check rtx_code with the appropriate predicate macros. > > > > > > Would someone be able to review/actually apply the changes if they look > > > acceptable? > > > > > > Most of the change is auto-generated using the enclosed script [1]. In > > > addition I have added 3 new predicates to rtl.h: CONST_VECTOR_P, > > > CONST_STRING_P and CONST_P. After the autogenned patch there is a small > > > cleanup for a couple instances where the existing comparison is split > > > across source lines and wasn't picked up by the script. > > > > Thank you for doing this! > > > > I don't think there should be a CONST_P like this, the name suggests > > too much that the macro returns true for constants, which isn't what it > > does (not in either direction; neither more or less than it). > > > > It's worse than SET_P or PLUS_P would be even, imo. > > Yes, I agree CONST_P is a little confusing. There are about 60 > occurences of GET_CODE (..) being compared to CONST in generic code. > Should I just leave it out of the conversion
That's shat I would do. > or perhaps rename it to > RTL_CONST_P? Though none of the other macros is namespaced, unfortunately. But please get other people's opinion. Like, people who can actually approve your patch in the first place ;-) Segher
