Index Nav:	[Date&nbndex] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thrnbsp;Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: first release candidate for 2.10.1

To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: firelease candidate for 2.10.1
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
Date Cc: rearnsha at arm dot com
Organization: ARM Ltd.
Reply-To: rearnsha at arm dot cLI>

E> > Hi Richard, > > : > * gas/arm/arm6.s: Remove 'mrs r9, cpsr_all' since the cpsr_all > : > flag is nnger legal syntax. > : > : Err, why isn't it? > > Because it is not specified in the ARM ARM or the ARM DDI. :jÂ:its sanctionedntax: MRS{cond} rd, <psr> MSR{cond} <psr>, rm MSnd} <psrf>, rm MSR{cond} <psrf>, <#expression> where <psr> is CPSR, CPSR_all, SPSR or SPSR_all (Cand CPSR_all are synonyms as are SPSR and SPSR_all). <psrf> is CPSR_flg or SPSR_flg. > > Note the reverse ruction is allowed. ie > > msr cpsr_all, r9 > > will be accepted and assembled correctly. > > : I ect this is going to break a lot of legacy code. > > Really ? It is a simple syntactic change to fix. (Replace "mrs > cpsr_all" with "mrs r9, cpsr"). Do you really think that this is > going to be a big problem for people out thereWell all the netbsd kernel code uses the _all form for starters... R.

References:
- - From: Nick Clifton<

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Author Index] [Thread Inde>]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] HREF="msg00333.html">Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]