[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