This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils patches for Cirrus/arm9e/maverick support
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Subject: Re: binutils patches for Cirrus/arm9e/maverick support
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 11 Oct 2001 14:43:10 +0100
- Cc: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200110110944.KAA21897@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
Hi Richard,
> I'm going to have to rewrite cirrus_reg_required_here, since in my
> new parser there is no single hash table containing all the
> registers; instead there is a hash table for each class of register
> and the assembler must look up the register name in the appropriate
> class. Which leads to the above function. There are several places
> where the above is called with CIRRUS_REGTYPE_ANY. That wouldn't be
> too bad, but why on earth would an ARM register name be valid at the
> same position in the syntax as a CIRRUS register?
It wouldn't. But the code has already ascertained that the register
*is* a Cirrus register, it just needs to make sure that it is a Cirrus
register of the correct type. (Of course in the case of
CIRRUS_REGTYPE_ANY, this test is a no-op). ie before
cirrus_reg_required_here() is called, cirrurs_register() has been
called to check the register number.
Cheers
Nick