From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3257 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2001 17:52:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com Received: (qmail 3211 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 17:52:14 -0000 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15348.168.750723.846784@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:33:00 -0000 To: Dave Brolley Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa] Ordering insns in hash chain for cgen disassemblers In-Reply-To: <3BF3F9AE.8070907@redhat.com> References: <3BF178A6.F12C7023@redhat.com> <15346.55680.817467.321067@casey.transmeta.com> <3BF3F9AE.8070907@redhat.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 Dave Brolley writes: > Doug Evans wrote: > >Setting aside the state of the implementation of ifield assertions > >(since I don't remember what it is), why wouldn't an ifield assertion > >work here? > > > Yes, I specified them fully and found that they are ignored :-( Then a todo item (I saw a mention of this in the docs). Wanna do it? That's a more preferable patch than the current one (I think!). I'm not going to argue for it's removal but fwiw it slightly bothers me. I worry it's just going to cause headaches. [While not being the only cause of the worry, question: how will this sort play with ifield assertion support when it's added, and the user's expectation that things are picked based on order in the file. Maybe you could choose to not sort insns with ifield assertions, I guess. But then things would be getting a bit convoluted.] > >(or see the static fn decls at the top of cgen-dis.c) > > > That was there already. No claim was made that you had written it (though I can see that one might infer that), and yes I realize it was there already. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Evans To: Dave Brolley Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa] Ordering insns in hash chain for cgen disassemblers Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: <15348.168.750723.846784@casey.transmeta.com> References: <3BF178A6.F12C7023@redhat.com> <15346.55680.817467.321067@casey.transmeta.com> <3BF3F9AE.8070907@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/msg00032.html Message-ID: <20011115095200.dYhlv-yaoGvOhcvbCT-kPwFU6WTxtoUhCE5BSqXk5gA@z> Dave Brolley writes: > Doug Evans wrote: > >Setting aside the state of the implementation of ifield assertions > >(since I don't remember what it is), why wouldn't an ifield assertion > >work here? > > > Yes, I specified them fully and found that they are ignored :-( Then a todo item (I saw a mention of this in the docs). Wanna do it? That's a more preferable patch than the current one (I think!). I'm not going to argue for it's removal but fwiw it slightly bothers me. I worry it's just going to cause headaches. [While not being the only cause of the worry, question: how will this sort play with ifield assertion support when it's added, and the user's expectation that things are picked based on order in the file. Maybe you could choose to not sort insns with ifield assertions, I guess. But then things would be getting a bit convoluted.] > >(or see the static fn decls at the top of cgen-dis.c) > > > That was there already. No claim was made that you had written it (though I can see that one might infer that), and yes I realize it was there already.