Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?

[Richard Earnshaw]

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 03:15:55PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > I don't think it is possible for this to change at runtime...
> 
> I thought maybe it might change based on -march switches,
> particularly the presence or absence of the second register.
> 

More importantly, why is it a function that returns one or two registers.  
If it has to mess around with pointers, why doesn't it return an array 
(terminated by INVALID_REGNUM) of condition registers.  In fact, the macro 
could point directly at the array without the need for a function call (a 
-m switch would simply change the array pointed to).

R.