From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
To: Greg McGary <greg@mcgary.org>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, cgen@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 10:45:00 -0000
Message-id: <14894.35112.39862.784263@casey.transmeta.com>
References: <200012012217.PAA04718@kayak.mcgary.org> <20001201173254.G20294@redhat.com> <msy9xzvgrq.fsf@mcgary.org> <msitoxwghs.fsf@mcgary.org> <msg0k1wfzh.fsf@mcgary.org>
X-SW-Source: 2000-q4/msg00247.html

Greg McGary writes:
 > Doug, does that sound reasonable to you, or are you philosophically
 > opposed to the entire 2/3 operand insn hack?

Could I see the .cpu file in question so I have a clear understanding
of what the problems and issues are and so that I can play with them
myself?

[at this point I don't have enough info to form an opinion]