Hi! On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:15:21PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > In the patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01201.html > > Segher Boessenkool asked me to submit a patch to rename the macros used to see > if a number is a valid signed 16 or 34-bit value: > > > Please follow up with a patch to not call random numbers "OFFSET". > > This patch does this, renaming: > > SIGNED_34BIT_OFFSET_P -> SIGNED_INTEGER_34BIT_P > SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_P -> SIGNED_INTEGER_16BIT_P > > I did not change the secondary macros (SIGNED_34BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P and > SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_P), since those are exclusively used for offset > calculations. But I can if you prefer it that way.
No, that is fine. It is also fine to keep the SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_P etc. names around as well; that might be nicer code, too? Names matter as well, not just what the code does. > @@ -24770,7 +24770,7 @@ address_to_insn_form (rtx addr, > return INSN_FORM_BAD; > > HOST_WIDE_INT offset = INTVAL (op1); > - if (!SIGNED_34BIT_OFFSET_P (offset)) > + if (!SIGNED_INTEGER_34BIT_P (offset)) > return INSN_FORM_BAD; So you might want to keep this one? > @@ -24789,7 +24789,7 @@ address_to_insn_form (rtx addr, > return INSN_FORM_BAD; > > /* Large offsets must be prefixed. */ > - if (!SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_P (offset)) > + if (!SIGNED_INTEGER_16BIT_P (offset)) And this. That is so few that this is fine, sure. > +/* Whether a given VALUE is a valid 16 or 34-bit signed integer. */ > +#define SIGNED_INTEGER_NBIT_P(VALUE, N) > \ > IN_RANGE ((VALUE), \ > + -(HOST_WIDE_INT_1 << ((N)-1)), \ > + (HOST_WIDE_INT_1 << ((N)-1)) - 1) (This evaluates N twice. Macros are evil.) Okay for trunk. Thanks! Segher
