From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: dje@transmeta.com (Doug Evans)
Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: insn-word-bitsize
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <o58zhw4v6j.fsf@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
References: <200107092319.QAA19491.cygnus.local.cgen@casey.transmeta.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-q3/msg00035.html

dje wrote:

: I wrote:
: >Ah.  Then I don't have a problem with the patch _providing_
: >word[-_]bitsize is renamed (say insn[-_]word[-_]bitsize).
: 
: btw, just so there's no misunderstanding,
: what I'm suggesting is adding insn-word-bitsize, not replacing word-bitsize
: with insn-word-bitsize (i.e. rename word-bitsize in your patch).

Hmm...

: Hmmm... I just grepped for it, insn-word-bitsize is already there!

Not quite - there is a "default-insn-word-bitsize", which sounds
tantalizing, but is already used for other things (bit numbering).  I
would prefer not have to untangle now the web of relationships between
other parameters (that one, base-insn-bitsize, default-insn-bitsize,
and methinks some more friends).


- FChE