This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Add MIPS ufr macro instruction
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Bennett <Andrew dot Bennett at imgtec dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:11:44 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add MIPS ufr macro instruction
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774C835E at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <87vc01erxi dot fsf at talisman dot default> <87siuzcpp4 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774CB15B at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774CE268 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <8738mm3pgb dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1311241820110 dot 21686 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774DAC1A at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <87fvq07ufx dot fsf at talisman dot default> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774DE91E at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <87vbysiu3a dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1312131823410 dot 19368 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <878uvn4u5x dot fsf at talisman dot default>
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> If you agree, then the patch is OK with every ISA_MIPS32* and ISA_MIPS64*
> >> entry having mips_cp1_names_mips3264. If not then let me know :-)
> >
> > Shouldn't there be a complementing GAS part though?
>
> I think that's future work too. There's no corresponding gas support
> for CP0 registers (or any notion of ".set arch"-specific registers really),
> so it wouldn't be a trivial patch.
Hmm, I thought the original intent of this change was to extend GAS to
support a more readable form of COP1 instructions accessing CP0.Status.FR
and now this replacement change has dropped the original proposal in
favour to one that affects the disassembler only. FAOD I'm perfectly fine
with that move, just a little bit surprised.
FWIW, UFR as originally proposed can be trivially implemented with .macro
if required.
Maciej