This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Thursday 26 January 2012 02:27:04 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/26/2012 02:18 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 January 2012 18:58:00 Kevin Buettner wrote: > >> +/* Return the register address associated with the register specified > >> by + REGNO. */ > >> +static unsigned long reg_addr (enum sim_rl78_regnum regno) > >> +{ > >> + if (sim_rl78_bank0_r0_regnum <= regno && regno <= > >> sim_rl78_bank0_r7_regnum) > >> + return 0xffef8 + (regno - sim_rl78_bank0_r0_regnum); > > > > the if statements look funny because the operators are reversed. a more > > > > natural (imo) check: > > if (regno >= sim_rl78_bank0_r0_regnum && regno <= > > sim_rl78_bank0_r7_regnum) > > Funny, I also usually go with Kevin's style. My rationale is that > > LOWER_RANGE <= N && N <= UPPER_RANGE > > looks more like the mathematical > > LOWER_RANGE <= N <= UPPER_RANGE > > and thus reads more naturally to me. if you guys are used to it, then that's fine. not like i'm maintaining this section of code :). sim stuff looks OK by me -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |