From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10552 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2001 18:11:18 -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 10515 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 18:11:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3BF40554.8090807@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:33:00 -0000 From: Dave Brolley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa] Ordering insns in hash chain for cgen disassemblers References: <3BF178A6.F12C7023@redhat.com> <15346.55680.817467.321067@casey.transmeta.com> <3BF3F9AE.8070907@redhat.com> <15348.168.750723.846784@casey.transmeta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 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 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