From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27423 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2002 16:47:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27289 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2002 16:47:45 -0000 Message-ID: <3C348B46.4020806@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 08:47:00 -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: "Frank Ch. Eigler" CC: sid@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa]: Decoding (not-so) ambiguous insns in sid/sim References: <3C3391D7.6050301.cygnus.project.sid@redhat.com> <3C3484FA.8070708@redhat.com> <20020103113237.I18067@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > >You mean that there are actually four separate cases to consider? > >p0=X, p1=Y, num_insns=N > > X=0 / Y=0 ==> result = 0 > X 0 < result < N > X=N / Y=0 ==> result = 0 > X!=0 / Y!=0 ==> result >= N > >Okay. Tricky. > Yup -- you got it. And also vice-versa with respect to p0 and p1. >>Can I consider your response to be approval to commit? >> > >Sure. > ok. >>What about "filter-harmlessly-ambiguous-insns"? >>Should I remove it from insn.scm? >> > >No opinion. > I've thought about this a bit. Since the function is no longer used, has a misleading name, and is very similar to the new "filter-non-specialized-ambiguous-insns", I think I'll remove it. Dave