Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com> writes: > I named it this way CASE_CONST_SCALAR_INTEGER because i need to > introduce in the next patch a predicate that looks like > > /* Predicate yielding true iff X is an rtx for a integer const. */ > #if TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT == 1 > #define CONST_INTEGER_P(X) \ > (CONST_INT_P (X) || CONST_WIDE_INT_P (X)) > #else > #define CONST_INTEGER_P(X) \ > (CONST_INT_P (X) || CONST_DOUBLE_AS_INT_P (X)) > #endif > > for all of the rtxs that represent an integer. And this name was > consistent with that. It may be that you have a suggestion for the > name of predicate as well
Good guess. > but it seemed to make more sense to have the > rtxs be consistent rather than rtx/mode consistent. Yeah, I think CONST_SCALAR_INT_P would be better here too. "INTEGER" just isn't distinct enough from "INT" for the difference to be obvious. It also doesn't indicate that complex integers and vector integers are excluded. SCALAR_INT seems a bit more precise, as well as having precedent. BTW, the "== 1" above looks redundant. Richard
