On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:30:14 -0800
Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > + }
> > +}
> > +code
> > +{
> > + if (c->inst.error_count != 0) {
> > + fprintf(stderr,
> > + "Parsing of instruction %s generated %d errors!\n",
> > + c->inst.name,
> > + c->inst.error_count);
> > + EMIT(c, "assert(false && \"This instruction is not
> > implemented!\");");
>
> What's the point of assert(false) above abort()?
>
> Is there any point in emitting anything at all, since I assume the
> idef-parser program itself will exit with error, stopping the build
> process?
This is a leftover, that string will never be written to disk (`commit`
is not invoked).
> > +| pre ASSIGN rvalue
> > +{
> > + @1.last_column = @3.last_column;
>
> Do you really find any value in this column manipulation, given that
> the input is not the original file, but the output of cpp?
The output of `cpp` is quite readable. We use it a lot for debugging
and it's very helpful.
> IMO this is another reason to *not* preprocess with macros.inc, nor
> sed the output as a workaround for your parsing troubles.
Yes, `sed` is a workaround I really don't like too. But preprocessing
with `cpp` saves us from having to handle a larger, redundant language.
After all, the input language is designed to be expanded through the
preprocessor, although with a different set of macros. I'd keep that
part.
--
Alessandro Di Federico
rev.ng
