Re: sim/mips patch: add support for more NEC VR targets

Andrew Cagney
2002-12-03T17:35:58Z

> At Wed, 27 Nov 2002 03:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote:
>
>> This is the way it has (ment to) been done for all MIPS ISA variants
>> since igen replaced gencode. You've proposed a change to that process
>> so I'm [trying to] explain the rationale behind the current status-quo :-)
>
>
> Ahh. OK, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
>
> So, all of that having been said, do you have strong objections to
> proceeding in the "new way" as described here in previous messages?
>
> (You have the right automatically reserved to tell me "I told you so"
> if it turns out to be impractical. 8-)

If the function is going to contain:

if (TARGET_ARCH (SD) == ...)

then I don't think it should be in the .igen file (i.e., put it
somewhere else as is done with the FP code (where I can't see it :-)).
The .igen files have a mechanism for differentiating between
architecures, so I don't think that file should be confused by using a
second mechanism. If igen ever gets finished (the C code is replaced by
a language parser) then the simpler that language is the better. Part
of that simplicity is avoiding dependencies on SD / sim-main.h like the
plague :-)

As for having to tag each individual entry in the .igen file with an
explicit CPU. Yes, that sux. However, I also believe that it has
significantly reduced the overall error rate (no more breaking one
target by editing another) and that benefit vastly outweighs the short
term pain.

Andrew