This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Opcodes: (BRCLR / BRSET) Disassemble reserved codes instead of aborting.
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- To: John Darrington <john at darrington dot wattle dot id dot au>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:27:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Opcodes: (BRCLR / BRSET) Disassemble reserved codes instead of aborting.
- References: <1533891729-7160-1-git-send-email-john@darrington.wattle.id.au> <20180816085532.fyradho3ibpyfwda@jocasta.intra>
Hi John,
> ping!
Sorry once again.
> opcodes/
> * s12z-dis.c: BM_RESERVED1 to behave like BM_OPR_REG, and
> BM_RESERVED0 like BM_REG_IMM.
> +2018-07-28 John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
> +
> + * testsuite/gas/s12z/bit-manip-invalid.d: New file.
> + * testsuite/gas/s12z/bit-manip-invalid.s: New file.
> + * testsuite/gas/s12z/s12z.exp: Add them.
> +
Approved - please apply.
> + /* The NXP documentation is vague about BM_RESERVED0 and BM_RESERVED1,
> + and contains obvious typos.
> + However the Freescale tools and experiments with the chip itself
> + seem to indicate that they behave like BM_REG_IMM and BM_OPR_REG
> + respectively. */
I have to say that this is a little bit suspicious. If they behave the
in the same way as already defined modes, then why are they used at all ?
Plus of course the name implies that they are reserved for a use that has
yet to be defined, and should, by implication, not be used at the moment.
Cheers
Nick