Re: no_new_pseudos

[Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk>]

Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@nildram.co.uk> 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