Re: [PATCH] Lexra support in binutils

[Adam Nemet <anemet at caviumnetworks dot com>]

Thiemo Seufer writes:
> Adam Nemet wrote:
> > Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> writes:
> > > Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > In fact I would say that the only thing currently missing from your patch is a
> > >> > set of ChangeLog entries for the directories affected by the changes and maybe
> > >> > an entry in the gas/NEWS file mentioning the support for the Lexra.
> > >> 
> > >>  One minor nit -- it would probably make sense to put the "mips0" entry in 
> > >> mips_cpu_info_table[] separately before the list of "Entries for generic 
> > >> ISAs," with a one-line comment like: "A fake ISA for MIPS I CPUs without 
> > >> unaligned transfers."
> > >
> > > I wonder how this will play with .set mips0. Maybe we should use "mips0.9"
> > > for it, "mips0.8" for the compatible octeon subset, and "mips1.9" for the
> > > R5900. :-)
> > 
> > If I understand this correctly, shouldn't octeon be mips64r1.9 then?
> 
> I had the octeon in the _other_ unaligned instruction mode in mind
> with that.

Right so did I but isn't the "formula":

  mips64r2 - MIPS unaligned instructions + custom unaligned instructions = mips64r1.9?

But maybe I misunderstanding what you meant by mips1.9 for R5900.  I assumed
the logic there was:

  mips2 - some mips2 instructions = mips1.9

?

Adam