Re: defining 2-operand version of 3-operand insns?

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

Hi -

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:13:49AM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
: [...]
: [in another message]
:  > Doug, does that sound reasonable to you, or are you philosophically
:  > opposed to the entire 2/3 operand insn hack?
: 
: I'm not at all opposed to this.  I support it!
: [pedantic: as long as it's kept in the assembler side of things and
: hacks aren't added to the simulator to support it]

On the other hand, consider that if the ifield-assertion code is
changed to allow reasonable generalization and specialization
alternatives, then this can be a simulator performance improvement
gadget.   It could subsume the (decode-splits*) construct that I
broke (disabled) a few months ago with the decoder revamping.

- FChE

PGP signature