Fix sim fallout from arm assembler complaining about symbols named as insns

[Vidya Praveen]

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:37:16AM +0100, Nicholas Clifton wrote:
> Hi Hans-Peter,
> 
> > I'm not completely sure this new gas warning is a good thing.
> > I mean, symbols such as those below don't really interfere with
> > the insn namespace, do they?
> 
> No, but they can be a little bit confusing and the problem I was trying 
> to solve, of an instruction name being mistakenly treated as a symbol, 
> is genuine. It would be better I agree to restrict this check to just 
> the case where the "=" assignment operator is being used, but I did not 
> want to modify generic code.  Maybe I should have done that. :-(

Yes. I think the warning should just restrict to cases where it can possibly
go wrong. There can be too many false positives with the current solution as
it warns if a symbol name merely matches a mnemonic. 

For example, simply having a global variable called "str" in a C program (which
is perfectly valid) can trigger this warning. In fact quite a few gcc tests 
fail at the moment because of this. 

VP.




> > To wit, right now, the new symbol "sanity-check" causes failures
> > for --target arm-eabi check-sim:
> 
> So it does.  I should have checked that before committing the patch.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> > +2015-05-02  Hans-Peter Nilsson  <hp@axis.com>
> > +
> > +	* bl.cgs (bl0): Rename from symbol colliding with insn name bl.
> > +	* iwmmxt/tmia.cgs (tmia0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/tmiaph.cgs (tmiaph0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/waligni.cgs (waligni0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wand.cgs (wand0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wandn.cgs (wandn0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wmov.cgs (wmov0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wor.cgs (wor0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wshufh.cgs (wshuf0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wxor.cgs (wxor0): Similar.
> > +	* iwmmxt/wzero.cgs (wzero0): Similar.
> > +	* xscale/mia.cgs (mia0): Similar.
> > +	* xscale/miaph.cgs (miaph0): Similar.
> 
> I think that this is a good solution - please apply.