RE: [PATCH v99,01/13] MIPS: microMIPS: Add support for microMIPS instructions.

["Hill, Steven" <sjhill@mips.com>]

>> The microMIPS patch nearly quadruples the number of instruction
>> formats in the mips_instruction union, so it might be worth
>> considering questions like:
>>
>> 1) Is this the optimal way to represent this information, or have we
>> reached a point where it is worth adding more complex "infrastructure"
>> that would support a more compact instruction definition format?
>>
>> 2) Is there a better way to handle the LE/BE bitfield problem, than to
>> duplicate each of the 28+ structs?
>
> Something based on #defines, for example.  Back in the dark ages I
> figured bitfields would be nicer way to represent instruction formats.
> Against the warning words of I think Kevin Kissel I went for the bitfields
> and this would be a good opportunity to change direction.
>
Oh sure, why not. I mean I've only rewritten this patch at least 10 times. 
What's one more time? :) If one or all of you would expound on what your design 
ideas are, that would be great. Again, not to sound like a scratched CD, but I 
am still shooting for this code to get into 3.9, so please reply soon. Thanks.

-Steve