From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Evans To: Ben Elliston Cc: matthew green , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: re: better handling of unknown operands Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <15039.26742.627337.115078@casey.transmeta.com> References: <20010321170135.E21159@redhat.com> <22041.985231804@cygnus.com> <15039.16782.106280.561374@scooby.apac.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg00208.html Ben Elliston writes: > matthew> if you change the assertion to be: > > matthew> every format op is either: > matthew> - SEM-ONLY, or > matthew> - has a matching syntax op, and > matthew> every syntax op has matching format op. > > matthew> is there a case that this doesn't work with? i looked at the current > matthew> cgen input files and none of them appear to use the former currently, > matthew> but it definately should be supported. i can't think of a case for > matthew> operands used for parsing purposes that don't have format ifields, but > matthew> if there were, you could extend this with a (new? same?) attribute to > matthew> indicate it was such. > > Anyone? Anyone? I don't quite understand the question.