This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: patch to add wdebug instruction for coldfire and fix few other opcodes
- To: Niraj Gupta <ngupta at zumanetworks dot com>, pauli at moreton dot com dot au
- Subject: Re: patch to add wdebug instruction for coldfire and fix few other opcodes
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 09 Nov 2001 10:38:41 +0000
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <MSMAIL6bdVJWrGW6Ex3000000e9@msmail.win.zumanetworks.com>
Hi Niraj,
> please accept this patch to added the wdebug instruction for coldfire
> and fix wddata instruction opcode
> -{"wddatab", one(0172000), one(0177700), "~s", mcf },
> -{"wddataw", one(0172100), one(0177700), "~s", mcf },
> -{"wddatal", one(0172200), one(0177700), "~s", mcf },
> +{"wddatab", one(0175400), one(0177700), "~s", mcf },
> +{"wddataw", one(0175500), one(0177700), "~s", mcf },
> +{"wddatal", one(0175600), one(0177700), "~s", mcf },
> +{"wdebug", two(0175700, 0000003), two(0177700, 0177777), "~s", mcf },
Your definition of "wdebug" is different from the one I accepted from
Pauli a few months ago. He defines it as:
{"wdebug", two(0175720, 03), two(0177770, 0xffff), "as", mcf },
{"wdebug", two(0175750, 03), two(0177770, 0xffff), "ds", mcf },
Since I do not have access to an ISA for this architecture I cannot
judge which definition is correct (or if they are identical). Please
could you check to make sure that these definitions are correct.
Cheers
Nick