From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Brolley To: Doug Evans Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa] Ordering insns in hash chain for cgen disassemblers Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3BF40554.8090807@redhat.com> References: <3BF178A6.F12C7023@redhat.com> <15346.55680.817467.321067@casey.transmeta.com> <3BF3F9AE.8070907@redhat.com> <15348.168.750723.846784@casey.transmeta.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/msg00033.html Message-ID: <20011115101100.CdAl1F37RBgsMa2DNQtYZGrBUvA-IYMKIfsCYTWrrEE@z> 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