Re: [RFC] Use .opt for the SPARC port

[Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>]

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> writes:
>> So your main objection to my patch is that the string "Mask(...)"
>> doesn't feature in the mask definition?  If so, I suppose we could
>> just allow stand-alone "Mask(FOO)" records.  Would that be a reasonable
>> compromise?
>
> No. :-)  I think self-contained definitions are better, like option records, 
> because...
>
>> (I didn't understand your comment about the textual description.
>> You used a comment in your .opt files.  Couldn't you do that with
>> either approach?)
>
> ... I'd prefer contextual descriptions for the masks, that is
>
> TargetMask
> Mask(M1)
> ;; adadadsxcvcddfdfdfd
> ;; dgdfdfdfdfdfdfdfere
>
> TargetMask
> Mask(M2)
> ;; fgfgfgfgfgfgfg
> ;; fgfgfgfgfgf
>
> instead of
>
> TargetMasks
> Mask(M1) Mask(M2)
>
> ;; M1: adadadsxcvcddfdfdfd
> ;; dgdfdfdfdfdfdfdfere
>
> ;; M2: fgfgfgfgfgfgfg
> ;; fgfgfgfgfgf

Just to clear, my suggested compromise was simply to drop "TargetMask"
from your version.  I.e.:

Mask(M1)
;; adadadsxcvcddfdfdfd
;; dgdfdfdfdfdfdfdfere

Mask(M2)
;; fgfgfgfgfgfgfg
;; fgfgfgfgfgf

But...

> At this point perhaps a third opinion would be welcome, wouldn't it?

...yes. ;)

(A lot of fuss about nothing really, but hey, it takes two to tango ;)

Richard