On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>-#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \ >>- ((TARGET_64BIT && (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \ >>- || TARGET_PECOFF)) \ >>- || !flag_pic ? INVALID_REGNUM \ >>- : reload_completed ? REGNO (pic_offset_table_rtx) \ >>+#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \ >>+ ((TARGET_64BIT && (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \ >>+ || TARGET_PECOFF)) \ >>+ || !flag_pic ? INVALID_REGNUM \ >>+ : pic_offset_table_rtx ? INVALID_REGNUM \ >> : REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM) > >>No negative conditions, please. Also, please follow established >>multi-level condition format, please see e.g. HARD_REGNO_NREGS >>definition in i386.h. > I don't see how we can avoid negative condition here. If we remove > "not" from !flag_pic we'll need to add "not" to TARGET_64BIT and > TARGET_PECOFF. > > I've done it this way: > +#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM > \ > + ((TARGET_64BIT && (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \ > + || TARGET_PECOFF)) > \ > + || !flag_pic > \ > + ? INVALID_REGNUM \ > + : pic_offset_table_rtx \ > + ? INVALID_REGNUM \ > + : REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM) > > Is it ok?
Oh, indeed. I missed the logical or. Maybe put the first condition into parenthesis, to avoid confusion. OK in any case. Thanks, Uros.
