[patch] Add fido support (Part 5/n)

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Kazu,

>> IMHO it would be better to fix the opcode table so that the unsupported
>> insns don't match in the first place.
> 
> Hmm.  That may make m68k-opc.c a bit ugly.  Each CPU core is defined as 
> an OR of one or more flags like m68000, cpu32, fido_a, etc in m68k_archs 
> in tc-m68k.c.  If we were to reject tbl instructions with the opcode 
> table, I would have to treat fido as a new core.  That is, I would have 
> to define fido as fido_a, not cpu32|fido_a.  In addition, I have to put 
> fido_a everywhere we see cpu32 in m68k-opc.c.  Normally, we don't have 
> to worry about this problem because because people keep adding new 
> instructions and do not remove instructions.  I guess the m68k world is 
> different.  Neither CPU32 or ColdFire is a superset of m68000.  Fido is 
> not a strict superset of CPU32 either.
> 
> Thoughts?

I'm with Andreas and Eric here.  It may take more effort to fix up the 
opcodes table, but I think that it will be worth it in the long run to 
have cleaner, easier to read code.

Cheers
   Nick