Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: optimize fv_reg_base_num and dr_reg_base_num

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>]

On Feb 16 10:28, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > another optimization which also will simplify the handling of the
>  > upcoming SH variant.
>  > 
>  > The functions fv_reg_base_num and dr_reg_base_num are basically
>  > one-liner.  The expression they evaluate is fairly simple so
>  > I'd suggest the following patch.  It converts both functions
>  > into macros which will be evaluated inline.  This has the additional
>  > advantage, that the functions in which they are called have access
>  > to gdbarch, which comes in handy for the new SH variant.
>  > 
>  > If the conversion into macros is undesired, I'd like to suggest an
>  > alternative implementation.  In that case I'd like to add gdbarch as
>  > first parameter to both functions.
> 
> I prefer to not introduce macros here.  Can you explain where you are
> headed? This looks like a micro optimization and I don't see the point
> of it ATM.

Gosh, I'm so sorry.  I should have cancled this RFA already days ago.
This is a result of the same thinko I talked about in my previous
mail.  The (blockheaded) idea was to use another SH_NUM_REGS for the
new CPU variant than for any other SH type.  I already scratched that
but I missed to note that here :-(

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.