DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > (2) When and if you switch to this:
| >
| > class machine_mode
| > {
| > enum value_t {
| > VOIDmode, SImode, // ...
| > } value;
| >
| > // accessors, whatever ...
| > };
|
| I think what Mark wants is to migrate to this:
|
| class machine_mode_desc
| {
| unsigned char bits;
| unsigned char is_signed:1;
| unsigned char partial_bits;
| unsigned char vector_width;
| char *name;
| // accessors, whatever
| };
| class machine_mode
| {
| machine_mode_desc *mode_data;
| // various constructors
| }
|
| And the target can do this in tm.c:
|
| class machine_mode SImode ("SI", 32);
| class machine_mode V4QImode ("V4QI", 8, 0, 8, 4);
|
| Then, the MI parts can obtain a mode with certain characteristics,
| enumerate available modes, and get info about a given mode, but don't
| have a compile-time identifier for a "well-known named" mode.
I like it.
However, that is orthogonal to changing the plain numeric value "0" to
the named constant with current machinery, don't you believe?
-- Gaby
