Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Given our issues with failing disassembly we could try and re-use the
>> decode tree data to output what instruction is being decoded. This
>> will be used if registered as a fall-back for when the "proper"
>> disassembler fails to decode an instruction.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
>
> I don't have an opinion on the approach you are taking, but the
> Python code you are adding is consistent with the existing style
> of the script.
>
> That said, I find the existing code full of output() calls very
> hard to read.  If anybody wants to volunteer to improve the
> readability of the output generation, it would be welcome.

If we expect to have the script output a number of different forms I
guess re-factoring it with some sort of template based approach would be
worthwhile. I wonder if there are other examples in the code base? We
wouldn't want to have multiple template types.

>
> Acked-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>


--
Alex Bennée

Reply via email to