>> 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. > Oh sure, why not. I mean I've only rewritten this patch at least 10 times. What's one more time? :) If one or all of you would expound on what your design ideas are, that would be great. Again, not to sound like a scratched CD, but I am still shooting for this code to get into 3.9, so please reply soon. Thanks. -Steve
