Re: RFC: designated initializer vs. long long for i386 assembler

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:54:07AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:53:24AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I need to add more bits to
> > 
> > unsigned int opcode_modifier;
> > 
> > in template in i386 assembler. I am running out of bits. I have
> > 2 choices, changing it to long long or struct of bitfields.  long
> > long isn't a long term solution since we may run out of bits again
> > in the future. However, it is very unconvenient since we need to
> > selectively initialize many many entries in i386.h and it is very
> > easy to get it wrong. C99 has designated initializer, which is
> > very easy to use it to initialize those entires in i386.h correctly.
> 
> 3. Neither of the above.  Here's two bits freed.
> 

I need much more than 2 bits, which won't fit in the current
32bit int.


H.J.