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
