[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 #16 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #14)
> (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #12)
> > two modifications are needed:
> > 
> > 1. a "Fields Form" that goes in the same place as can be seen in
> > Power ISA Specs.
> 
> I'm planning on making the parser have the |-table be optional, so we can
> add it later.

awesome. comment #13.

> inserting the "X-Form" text at the end of the title -- that should be
> trivial to make the shell script move to the correct place since it's just
> on the next non-blank line. (though obtaining that form name from fields.txt
> will be more complex,

again: read comment #13.  do NOT attempt to duplicate insndb.
you ignored that i requested you write it in python, by using
one of the existing parser-readers: now there are consequences.

> so i'm just planning on moving the existing form name
> to the correct place and the python parser can just check for consistency,
> to be added later).

don't do that please. leave it where it is.

> > 
> > 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"
> 
> this section *is* the free-form text i was talking about. perhaps describing
> it as free-form was misleading,

indeed.  again: see comment #13.

> this needs to be a html comment since there is no text "Description in
> English language" in the v3.1B pdf (unless v3.2 changed that?).

solvable at the planned pandoc-plugin level by stripping out the
words "Description in English language".

trivial and NOT today's task.

> likewise, there is no "Pseudocode" text so that also needs to be a comment.

all solvable with the pandoc plugin. and also NOT today's task.

> both of those changes are trivial to do with the shell script (though the
> english description section will be empty, ready to be filled in)
> 
> > identification and insertion of (2) can be done using an insndb
> > walker but that *is* another separate task with its own budget
> 
> using insndb to insert that section is unnecessarily complex,

no, it really is not trivial, {}-Forms are NOT UNIQUE, they are
hopelessly mixed up (thank you IBM) and require a lookup of the
frickin OPERANDS In order to identify the correct frickin fields.text
entry.

if you have duplicated that in shell script you have just wasted your
time doing something that i specifically advised you not to do.
(and i am not authorising payment for things that you have wasted
time on by not listening to my advice)

> the shell
> script can easily do that.

the shell script should never have been written, you ignored my
advice.

please abandon the shell script as quickly as possible and do not
increase its complexity any further.  it was intended to be a one-shot
purpose to create the split and then abandoned immediately.

you have already spent far too long on this task through not listening.

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