assorted PPC questions

[Jan Beulich]

On 11.08.2020 11:02, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:38:35AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Wouldn't availability of pseudos implying %cr0 as first (i.e.
>> destination) operand better be consistent throughout the opcode set?
> 
> Are you saying every instruction ought to have a record bit?  ie. that
> there ought to be xxx. for every xxx?

No, the question wasn't about the . suffix. Instead what I'm wondering
is why CMP*, VCMP*, and XVTLSBB have pseudos with the first operand
omitted (implying %cr0), while e.g. FCMP* doesn't (and there are quite
a few more).

Jan