Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I wonder if it might be better to push this mechanism
> one layer down: Instead of having a flag that changes
> the behavior of the "exec" instructions and having a
> handy '-y' short cut for the new mode, we'd rather have
> a new type of command that executes&retries a command
> ...
> By having two classes, I would anticipate fewer compatibility
> issues ('"Exec" behaves differently, and I forgot I had turned
> on the rescheduling').
It takes us back to the original proposal that started this whole
thing.
cf. <3fb5a7ff-a63a-6fac-1456-4dbc9135d088@xxxxxxxxx>
After re-reading the thread, I still do not quite follow why it was
considered better to change the way "exec" is run with the command
line option than to implement this as a new insn [*1*], but that is
where this series fit in the larger picture, I think.
[Footnote]
*1* The original proposal called it "test" which I do not think was
a great name.
