[PATCH] PowerPC address support clean, patch 3 of 4

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> 2018-05-03  Michael Meissner  <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 	* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (mode_supports_d_form): Rename
> 	mode_supports_vmx_dform to mode_supports_d_form.  Add an optional
> 	argument to say which reload register class to use.  Change all
> 	callers to pass in the RELOAD_REG_VMX class explicitly.
> 	(rs6000_secondary_reload): Likewise.
> 	(rs6000_preferred_reload_class): Likewise.
> 	(rs6000_secondary_reload_class): Likewise.

Please don't say "likewise" unless the change is actually similar.

> -/* Return true if we have D-form addressing in altivec registers.  */
> +/* Return true if we have D-form addressing (register+offset) in either a
> +   specific reload register class or whether some reload register class
> +   supports d-form addressing.  */
>  static inline bool
> -mode_supports_vmx_dform (machine_mode mode)
> +mode_supports_d_form (machine_mode mode,
> +		      enum rs6000_reload_reg_type rt = RELOAD_REG_ANY)
>  {
> -  return ((reg_addr[mode].addr_mask[RELOAD_REG_VMX] & RELOAD_REG_OFFSET) != 0);
> +  return ((reg_addr[mode].addr_mask[rt] & RELOAD_REG_OFFSET) != 0);
>  }

Will this overload help anything?  It does not look that way, all current
callers use a different argument (and all the same).

Overloads are nice if they make things *easier* for the reader, not harder.
Same as with all other syntactic sugar.


Segher