Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Could use !HARD_REGISTER_P or !HARD_REGISTER_NUM_P here and in a few
other places, but we don't seem to have a convention for one or the
other, or just a direct compare with FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER. Just
something I noticed, anyway...
Compare with FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER is more idiomatic IMO.
FWIW, I agree that comparison with FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER is what has
traditionally been done -- but I think that using HARD_REGISTER_{NUM_,}P
is better. It's not that we're likely to ever change how the macro
works, but it does make the code a bit more readable.
In any case, that's not worth much debate; I shan't pursue it.
Are you waiting for any reviews from anyone in particular before
committing this patch?