Re: anonymous ifields

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>]

Hi -

On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 05:50:04PM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote:
:   Frank> How frequently does each of these anonymous ifields occur in your new
:   Frank> port?  [...]
: 
: In some cases, they occur dozens of times -- perhaps in 30% of the
: entire instruction set.

Do bitfields *reoccur*?  If so, maybe they shouldn't be anonymous.


:   Frank> [...] we could get cgen to automagically declare a bunch of
:   Frank> ifields for all contiguous bitfields in an instruction word. [...]
: 
: In some ways, I think that would be *worse*.  Things happening
: implicitly just gets confusing.  

What if the automagic ifields are called something obvious like
"bitN" and "bitsN:M" and "byteN"?


: Is what I'm proposing really deemed to be that bad?  I can
: understand it from the perspective of increasing cgen's syntax. [...]

Not that bad, but I prefer to avoid perlitis in the cgen's input
language, and also worry about unforseen mechanism breakage.


- FChE

PGP signature