Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Opcode membership proposal

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> >  This looks a bit convoluted, and frankly I'd prefer if automake supported 
> > true per-object flags with no need to resort to hacks like this, but there 
> > you go.  The benefit would be no need to check the rules against generated 
> > ones with each automake upgrade, that is less maintenance burden -- and 
> > the maintenance of our autoconf scriptery has already proved tough even 
> > without that.
> >
> >  Do you want me to check this alternative or would you prefer to do this 
> > yourself?
> 
> What do you think about explicitly initialising each field after all?
> I can easily repurpose the ASE-checking script to do that.

 Great!  I'm fine with that, sure.  While at it we could add pinfo3 too -- 
some microMIPS instructions (offhand: ALNV.PS ;) ) will benefit from more 
accurate data dependency tracking.

> I understand the original reason for having optional fields, but the
> workaround is beginning to feel a bit convoluted.  There's also more
> room for confusion than there was originally, now that we have the
> ASE field too.

 Agreed.  What I think was important was not to add an extra field while 
rewriting the opcode table at the same time -- that would obfuscate the 
change itself.

  Maciej