On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 02.06.2010 um 18:10 schrieb Blue Swirl:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/01/2010 09:29 PM, Igor Kovalenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/01/2010 01:12 PM, Igor V. Kovalenko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if ((env->pstate & PS_AM) && is_translating_asi(asi)) {
>>>>>> + addr &= 0xffffffffULL;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that these be written instead as
>>>>>
>>>>> if (is_translating_asi(asi)) {
>>>>> addr = address_mask(addr);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> That should allow you to remove some of the ifdefs.
>>>
>>>> I think it's better to do debug printf macro trick ...
>>>
>>> ... with no evidence. The compiler is happy to optimize away
>>> the entire if statement without having to resort to macros.
>>>
>>>> ... then but I see no real benefit at the moment.
>>>
>>> Avoiding ifdefs isn't a benefit?
>>
>> I agree macros would make the code more tidy, perhaps it could swallow
>> both the check and the masking. The macro can be empty for Sparc32.
>
> I usually prefer static inline functions over multi-line macros. Probably a
> matter of taste.
I'll resend this one updated to have less ifdefs.
--
Kind regards,
Igor V. Kovalenko
