On 10.09.2013 15:16, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/10/2013 01:27 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> There are two aspects. >> >> On one side, although some changes do not break anything, I see some >> problems in them. > > Then let us discuss them, sooner rather than later. > >> Putting them as a prerequisite for the rest forces us to agreeing on >> everything before moving forward, instead of being able to agree on separate >> chunks (meat first, rest later). In my view, this makes the process longer. > > If we have no common ground on how the port should look, then we simply cannot > move forward full stop. > > Having put together a foundation of AArch64Insn and tcg_fmt_*, that I believe > to be clean and easy to understand, I simply refuse on aesthetic grounds to
on aesthetic grounds? > rewrite later patches to instead use the magic number and open-coded insn > format used throughout the port today. That way leads to a much greater > chance > of error in my opinion. > I just asked you to reorder the way you do things, so that I had less work to do when dissecting problems in the actual functional changes. If it's really impossible for you to do that, I guess we can move forward anyway, it just creates more work here before we can have a chunk we agree on. I will put additional comments on the parts that I would like to see improved. Thanks, Claudio
