This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add new ARC EM opcodes.
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu dot Zissulescu at synopsys dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: "Francois dot Bedard at synopsys dot com" <Francois dot Bedard at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:14:05 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add new ARC EM opcodes.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1456405905-30875-1-git-send-email-claziss at synopsys dot com> <098ECE41A0A6114BB2A07F1EC238DE896617A9D7 at DE02WEMBXB dot internal dot synopsys dot com>
Hi Claudiu,
> Ping. The patch is strait forward, if no one complains, I will push it in the next days.
No, don't do that. You currently only have write-after-approval privileges so you must
wait for someone to review the patch. Even if you have to prod them several times first...
The only exception is if the patch can be considered to be "obvious", in which case you
can check it in without prior approval, but you must still post the patch to the list,
and tell people that you are committing an obvious fix. The exact definition of obvious
in this context is a bit nebulous, but I consider it to mean not "legally significant"[1],
not adding a new feature, and one to which any seasoned programmer would say "oh yes,
that is obvious".
[1] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant
Anyway, on to the patch review...
>> +++ b/include/opcode/arc.h
>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ typedef enum
>> SHFT1,
>> SHFT2,
>> SWAP,
>> - SP
>> + SP,
>> + QUARKSE
>> } insn_subclass_t;
This enum was alpha- sorted before this change. Is there any particular reason for
removing that property ?
>> +/* QuarkSE specific instructions. */
>> +{"dsp_fp_div", 0x382A0000, 0xF8FF0000, ARC_OPCODE_ARCv2EM, FLOAT,
>> QUARKSE, { RA, RB, RC }, { C_F }},
Given that there is so much repetition in these new entries, wouldn't it make sense
to use a couple of macros to automate most of the fields ? There is less chance for
typographical errors that way too.
Cheers
Nick