On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:10PM -0800, Kevin Cernekee wrote: > Some random thoughts/nitpicks on this section: > > The microMIPS patch nearly quadruples the number of instruction > formats in the mips_instruction union, so it might be worth > considering questions like: > > 1) Is this the optimal way to represent this information, or have we > reached a point where it is worth adding more complex "infrastructure" > that would support a more compact instruction definition format? > > 2) Is there a better way to handle the LE/BE bitfield problem, than to > duplicate each of the 28+ structs? Something based on #defines, for example. Back in the dark ages I figured bitfields would be nicer way to represent instruction formats. Against the warning words of I think Kevin Kissel I went for the bitfields and this would be a good opportunity to change direction. Ralf
