CGEN_WIDE_INT_INSN_P?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 05:50:44PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
> On the opcodes-like size of things,
> I remember ages ago talk of not having a choice between representing
> instructions as an int or as a byte stream,
> and just having a byte stream.
> 
> I kinda like using an int for targets where it feels like the
> obvious choice (e.g. sparc, etc.).
> Wrappers could fold CGEN_INT_INSN_P targets into byte streams.
> [...]

The hard part seems to be not the representation typedefs, but the
operations thereupon.  Fetching, masking, printing, comparing,
constitute a little API that hand-written (e.g. simulator) code
needs to be aware of, and perhaps flexible with regards to.

- FChE