Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> That's why it seems so odd to me to want to get rid of the port uses >> and not replace it with something directly equivalent. I just don't >> see how it qualifies as a clean-up. I think tying the ports even >> more to reload-specific conditions, even when we already have a more >> abstract concept, is the wrong way to go. > > At the risk of disturbing the bikeshed painting, what do you think of > this patch?
Looks good to me in principle. I probably won't be the first to point this out, but... > +/* This macro evaluates to true before register allocation has begun. > + This is used to determine whether it is OK to create a new > + pseudo-register. */ > + > +#define regalloc_started_p() (!reload_in_progress && !reload_completed) ...the comment and definition don't seem to agree with the macro name. I guess it should be: #define regalloc_started_p() (reload_in_progress || reload_completed) (I'll resist the temptation to claim that this shows why the abstraction is useful, but... doh) Thanks a lot for doing this. Richard
