From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24183 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2013 22:30:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24173 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2013 22:30:26 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:30:26 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UohwO-0000Lk-FI from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:30:24 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:30:23 -0700 Received: from [172.30.64.32] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:30:21 +0100 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:30:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Richard Sandiford CC: Alan Modra , Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Opcode membership proposal In-Reply-To: <87y5a8o6oj.fsf@talisman.default> Message-ID: References: <87obway4f5.fsf@firetop.home> <20130617115141.GU21523@bubble.grove.modra.org> <87y5a8o6oj.fsf@talisman.default> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 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