On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:34:44 -0400, David Cole wrote: >At 8/23/2011 07:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: >>Personally, I think the POP has gotten too big. It's over 1400 pages >>and growing. I also agree with an earlier poster that I had rather >>see less combining of instructions as sometimes the exceptions get lost. > >Absolutely!
Which is it, too big or needs to be expanded by providing separate descriptions for e.g. LH, LHR, LGHR, LHY, LGH, LHI, LGHI, LHRL and LGHRL. >Here is a typical PoOP paragaph: >>For LOAD HALFWORD (LH, LHR, and LHY), LOAD HALFWORD IMMEDIATE (LHI), >>and LOAD HALFWORD RELATIVE LONG (LHRL), the first operand is treated >>as a 32-bit signed binary integer. For LOAD HALFWORD (LGH and LGHR), >>LOAD HALFWORD IMMEDIATE (LGHI), and LOAD HALFWORD RELATIVE LONG >>(LGHRL), the first operand is treated as a 64-bit signed binary integer. > >Huh???? Yes, it requires careful reading. It also makes clear the similarities between these instructions in a way that would be lost if a completely separate description was written for each of them. >I think that the PoOP could be shortened by at least 25% if they >would just get rid of (and by "rid of", I only intend "reduce the use >of") such arduous nomenclature... > >Come on... Would it really be that bad if they changed, "For LOAD >HALFWORD (LGH and LGHR), LOAD HALFWORD IMMEDIATE (LGHI), and LOAD >HALFWORD RELATIVE LONG (LGHRL)..." to simply, "For LGH, LGHR, LGHI >and LGHRL..." Would it really be "that bad?" Perhaps not, but I prefer the existing language. The suggestion that changes like this would shorten the POO by "at least 25%" is absurd. I think in fact, it would reduce the size of the POO by a few pages. For me it would also make it a bit less clear. > >BTW: When I say "arduous", I mean that stuff is really really hard to read! For me, it would be harder to read just the acronyms. I prefer the way it is written now. BTW, I refer to the POO nearly every day. I always have it open. -- Tom Marchant
