Le 10/06/2022 à 05:32, Rohan McLure a écrit : >> On 2 Jun 2022, at 2:00 am, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 03:48:45PM +1000, Rohan McLure wrote: >>> +.macro BINOP_REGS op, rhs, start, end >>> + .Lreg=\start >>> + .rept (\end - \start + 1) >>> + \op .Lreg, \rhs >>> + .Lreg=.Lreg+1 >>> + .endr >>> +.endm >> >> This is for unary operations, not binary operations (there is only one >> item on the RHS). You can in principle put a string "a,b" in the rhs >> parameter, but in practice you need a or b to depend on the loop counter >> as well, so even such trickiness won't do. Make the naming less >> confusing, maybe? Or don't have an unused extra level of abstraction in >> the first place :-) >> >> >> Segher > > Thanks Segher, Christophe for reviewing this. > > Yep I see how having a macro to perform rX = rX <> Y for arbitrary infix <> > and operand > is unlikely to find much use outside of ZERO_GPRS. As I resubmit this patch > series I > will rename it to ZERO_REGS or similar to be more explicitly coupled to > ZERO_GPRS. > > Something like this I was thinking: > > .macro ZERO_REGS start, end > .Lreg=\start > .rept (\end - \start + 1) > li .Lreg, 0 > .Lreg=.Lreg+1 > .endr > .endm >
I'd have a preference for using a verb, for instance ZEROISE_REGS or CLEAR_REGS Christophe
