Re: [patch] Add fido support (Part 5/n)

[Eric Christopher <echristo at apple dot com>]

> > IMHO it would be better to fix the opcode table so that the  
> > unsupported
> > insns don't match in the first place.
>
> Hmm.  That may make m68k-opc.c a bit ugly.  Each CPU core is  
> defined as an OR of one or more flags like m68000, cpu32, fido_a,  
> etc in m68k_archs in tc-m68k.c.  If we were to reject tbl  
> instructions with the opcode table, I would have to treat fido as a  
> new core.  That is, I would have to define fido as fido_a, not  
> cpu32|fido_a.  In addition, I have to put fido_a everywhere we see  
> cpu32 in m68k-opc.c.  Normally, we don't have to worry about this  
> problem because because people keep adding new instructions and do  
> not remove instructions.  I guess the m68k world is different.   
> Neither CPU32 or ColdFire is a superset of m68000.  Fido is not a  
> strict superset of CPU32 either.
>
> Thoughts?

We had this problem in mips as well my preferred way there was the  
like Andreas describes since it made it easier to look at the table  
and understand just what each processor had, but the m68k maintainers  
may like your style instead.

-eric