Re: [patch][rfa] Ordering insns in hash chain for cgen disassemblers

[Dave Brolley <brolley@redhat.com>]

Doug Evans wrote:

>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!).
>
Yes, I agree. As usual, however, my shedule is tight.

>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.]
>
For any existing port which does not already specify the insns in this 
order, the less general insn will never be found. I only needed to add 
this because the order I needed for parsing was not the order I needed 
for decoding. I don't think that there will be any problems.

Glad to see that you're still active and interested in CGEN!

Dave