assorted PPC questions

[Jan Beulich]

Alan, Peter,

over time I've accumulated a number of observations that I'd like to
raise, in the hope that you may be able to clarify some or all of
them. With suitable answers either way, I could certainly see about
addressing those which are indeed deemed omissions, albeit in some
cases I'd likely need assistance in e.g. determining as of which
Power<N> version support ought to be available.

Shouldn't objdump prefer pseudos of M{F,T}VSRD just like it does for
MFVSRWZ/MTVSRW{A,Z} (apparent anomaly introduced by c0637f3af6866)?

Shouldn't gas support ICBT in a wider fashion, i.e. not just for
exotic (as I would call them) flavors?

Shouldn't gas support MISO not just for E6500?

Shouldn't gas support EXSER?

Shouldn't gas support MSGCLRU and MSGSNDU (perhaps an oversight
when support for ISA 3.0C's URFID was added)?

Shouldn't gas support Power7's (also Power8?) WAIT (with its WAITRSV
and WAITIMPL pseudos), currently supported for just E500MC and A2)?

Shouldn't gas support URMOR, USRR0, USRR1, USPRG0, USPRG1, and
SMFCTRL special registers (i.e. the respective pseudos)?

Shouldn't gas reject (or at least warn about) instructions invalid
in little endian mode?

Furthermore there are a few items which look to be inconsistent /
incomplete in the ISA spec itself, and hence aren't directly gas
issues:

While there are XVMOV{S,D}P pseudos of XVCPSGN{S,D}P, shouldn't
there also be XSMOV{D,Q}P (based on XSCPSGN{D,Q}P)? (I'm somewhat
puzzled by the absence of XSCPSGNSP, but the set of XS*SP looks to
be rather more limited compared to XS*DP and even XS*QP anyway.)

Wouldn't there better be CCTP* (as used by Cell) or similar pseudos
of OR?

Wouldn't availability of pseudos implying %cr0 as first (i.e.
destination) operand better be consistent throughout the opcode set?

Thanks, Jan