[Libre-soc-bugs] [Bug 1125] split instructions' pseudo-code into separate files so they can be [[!inline]]-ed into the wiki

[bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125

--- Comment #12 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #11)
> (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #8)
> > > the parser will need a decent amount of modification
> > 
> > NO.
> 
> we *do* need to parse the file that has the free-form text, 

no we do not.

see, read, and take as top priority comment #6.

we mistakenly duplicated the instruction details into the
RFCs, modifying them *inappropriately* in a freeform fashion.
this mistake needs correction and given the size of that manual task
it needs a LARGE budget far bigger than what you envisage.
(see below)

therefore the work needed to be done is the MINIMUM amount
of work to put those modifications BACK into the mdwn
and then include the ENTIRE mdwn in the RFC... WITHOUT
attempting to support any freeform arbitrary text.

the format of instructions is very very specific and regular
in the Power ISA.

two modifications are needed:

1. a "Fields Form" that goes in the same place as can be seen in
Power ISA Specs.

2. a new "Description in English Language" section is needed that
has a hash in front of it just after the pseudocode and before
"Special Registers"

that is ALL THAT IS NEEDED.

this is about 8-10 lines of code.

please stop and think ahead rather than rush into writing vast amounts
of code that then has to be ripped out.

the above is then dead-easy to write a pandoc plugin that autogenerates
the latex for insertion into the Power ISA spec.

identification and insertion of (2) can be done using an insndb
walker but that *is* another separate task with its own budget

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.