From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Elliston To: Doug Evans Cc: matthew green , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: re: better handling of unknown operands Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:04:00 -0000 Message-id: <15039.48355.962908.376797@scooby.apac.redhat.com> References: <20010321170135.E21159@redhat.com> <22041.985231804@cygnus.com> <15039.16782.106280.561374@scooby.apac.redhat.com> <15039.26742.627337.115078@casey.transmeta.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg00212.html >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: 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? Doug> I don't quite understand the question. We're talking about improving the parsing of syntax strings and format fields and validating their contents. In this way, you'll be warned if the operands appearing in the syntax string don't match what is expected in the format field. And we're just trying to discover all of the corner cases before doing so. Ben