[PATCH] MIPS: Opcode membership proposal
Richard Sandiford
rdsandiford@googlemail.com
Mon Jun 17 19:53:00 GMT 2013
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com> writes:
> This looks a bit convoluted, and frankly I'd prefer if automake supported
> true per-object flags with no need to resort to hacks like this, but there
> you go. The benefit would be no need to check the rules against generated
> ones with each automake upgrade, that is less maintenance burden -- and
> the maintenance of our autoconf scriptery has already proved tough even
> without that.
>
> Do you want me to check this alternative or would you prefer to do this
> yourself?
What do you think about explicitly initialising each field after all?
I can easily repurpose the ASE-checking script to do that.
I understand the original reason for having optional fields, but the
workaround is beginning to feel a bit convoluted. There's also more
room for confusion than there was originally, now that we have the
ASE field too.
Thanks,
Richard
More information about the Binutils
mailing list