Re: [commit] Split MIPS unwinder three ways; partly

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> At Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:26:47 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote:
>
> > > True.  mips_isa32?
>
>
> That may be *worse*, since mipsisa32 == "MIPS32" in bfd-speak.
>
> I don't know that it's important to make the names perfect, since this
> is internal implementation and isn't exposed.
>
> But in that case it should be documented that it refers to "mips ISAs
> with 32-bit instructions" (i.e., all but MIPS16).

I'd rather have the code clearly scream its intent:

	mips_insn32_
	mips_insn16_

? (otherwize in a few months we'll have someone unintentionally trying 
to sneak code that handles 16-bit instruction into a 32-bit instruction 
function).

Andrew