[PATCH] Update mtfsf and mtfsfi instructions to support new optional operands.
Peter Bergner
bergner@vnet.ibm.com
Wed Jan 21 21:58:00 GMT 2009
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 22:45 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > @@ -4937,8 +4939,10 @@ const struct powerpc_opcode powerpc_opco
> >
> > {"dtstsfq", X(63,674), X_MASK, POWER6, PPCNONE, {BF, FRA, FRB}},
> >
> > -{"mtfsf", XFL(63,711,0), XFL_MASK, COM, PPCNONE, {FLM, FRB, XFL_L, W}},
> > -{"mtfsf.", XFL(63,711,1), XFL_MASK, COM, PPCNONE, {FLM, FRB, XFL_L, W}},
> > +{"mtfsf", XFL(63,711,0), XFL_MASK, COM, POWER6, {FLM, FRB}},
> > +{"mtfsf.", XFL(63,711,1), XFL_MASK, COM, POWER6, {FLM, FRB}},
> > +{"mtfsf", XFL(63,711,0), XFL_MASK, POWER6, PPCNONE, {FLM, FRB, XFL_L, W}},
> > +{"mtfsf.", XFL(63,711,1), XFL_MASK, POWER6, PPCNONE, {FLM, FRB, XFL_L, W}},
>
> This breaks building glibc.
>
> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/powerpc64/setcontext.S: Assembler messages:
> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/powerpc64/setcontext.S:381: Error: junk at end of line: `1,0'
This is probably a bug in glibc, using the new form of the instruction
when they shouldn't be (ie, didn't configure with --with-cpu=power6).
Ryan / Steve,
Didn't one of you just add some code to guard the new mtfsf form?
If so, has that gone upstream yet?
Peter
More information about the Binutils
mailing list