On 11/21/2016 04:03 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:02:08AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:09:24PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > IN_RANGE(POS...) makes sure that POS is a non-negative number
> > > smaller than UPPER, so (UPPER) - (POS) does not wrap. Or is there
> > > some case that the new macro does not handle?
> >
> > I think it works fine.
> >
> > With a name like UPPER, you may want to have SIZE_POS_IN_RANGE work like
> > IN_RANGE, i.e. UPPER is inclusive then. Dunno.
>
> Yeah, maybe rather call it RANGE to avoid too much similarity.
> Some name that is so vague that one has to read the documentation.
> I'll post an updated patch later.
Third version of the patch attached. The only difference is that
the macro argument name has been changed back to RANGE.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
-- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany
0001-v3-ChangeLog
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/77822
* system.h (SIZE_POS_IN_RANGE): New.
OK. Though system.h seems like an unfortunate place. Would rtl.h work
better since this is really about verifying the arguments to things like
{zero,sign}_extract which are RTL concepts.
jeff
