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 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. r~
