[PATCH] MIPS EVA ASE Support
Maciej W. Rozycki
macro@codesourcery.com
Mon Jun 17 23:12:00 GMT 2013
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Moore, Catherine wrote:
> > > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gas/testsuite/gas/mips/mips.exp,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.222
> > > diff -p -u -r1.222 mips.exp
> > > --- gas/testsuite/gas/mips/mips.exp 14 Jun 2013 13:30:28 -0000 1.222
> > > +++ gas/testsuite/gas/mips/mips.exp 17 Jun 2013 20:28:48 -0000
> > > @@ -849,6 +849,8 @@ if { [istarget mips*-*-vxworks*] } {
> > > [mips_arch_list_matching mips64r2 \
> > > !micromips]
> > >
> > > + run_dump_test_arches "eva" [mips_arch_list_matching
> > mips32r2 !octeon]
> >
> > For the record, this is going to fail on ecoff, as Maciej pointed out for one of
> > the other recent patches. I'm planning to significantly trim the amount of
> > testing we do on ecoff though -- hopefully within the week -- so let's commit
> > this as-is.
> >
> > OK with those changes (or non-change in the last case), thanks.
I suspect it might make sense to commit the INSN_ASE_MASK macro removal,
which is functionally unrelated, as a separate change. Otherwise it'll
get lost in the mass of EVA-specific changes. I won't insist on that if
Richard disagrees though. The change looks otherwise fine to me.
> Should I hold off on fixing the other ecoff test failure? I was going
> to look at that next.
I think the reloc error itself (not the test case) needs to be fixed one
way or another. I have no opinion on which of wrapping the body of
s_ehword into #ifdef OBJ_ELF or preparing to dump support for ECOFF
targets in GAS altogether is going to be the better option. We already
have bitrot in ECOFF support I believe and some newer code does not handle
the ECOFF case gracefully. So perhaps this needs to be handled in a more
systematic way, either way.
Maciej
More information about the Binutils
mailing list