This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS EVA ASE Support
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: "Moore, Catherine" <Catherine_Moore at mentor dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:41:42 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS EVA ASE Support
- References: <FD3DCEAC5B03E9408544A1E416F11242F8FC6EE7 at NA-MBX-01 dot mgc dot mentorg dot com> <87fvwz9hsg dot fsf at talisman dot default> <FD3DCEAC5B03E9408544A1E416F11242F8FC9639 at NA-MBX-01 dot mgc dot mentorg dot com> <87bo7g99yn dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1306091647520 dot 16287 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <87r4gaj6dg dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Index: opcodes/micromips-opc.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- opcodes/micromips-opc.c 2013-06-08 10:18:33.894842596 +0100
> >> +++ opcodes/micromips-opc.c 2013-06-08 10:18:44.227957964 +0100
> >> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ const struct mips_opcode micromips_opcod
> >> /* These instructions appear first so that the disassembler will find
> >> them first. The assemblers uses a hash table based on the
> >> instruction name anyhow. */
> >> -/* name, args, match, mask, pinfo, pinfo2, membership, [exclusions] */
> >> +/* name, args, match, mask, pinfo, pinfo2, membership, [ase], [exclusions] */
> > I think this should be:
> > /* name, args, match, mask, pinfo, pinfo2, membership[[, ase], exclusions] */
> > or suchlike as the use of "exclusions" requires "ase" to have been set
> > too (possibly to 0). Likewise in opcodes/mips-opc.c.
> Don't you mean:
> [, ase[, exclusions]]
D'oh, yes, of course, sorry -- what was I thinking?
> ? But the original seems clearer to me.
Not at all to me. Note that a trailing comma in an aggregate type
initialiser is accepted by GCC as a valid C syntax (I reckon it was also
standardised in ISO C99). So the previous description was syntactically
correct even though no entries were updated to include the comma. Now two
consecutive commas with no intervening field initialiser are not accepted,
so the new description is plain wrong.
With the above in mind please feel free to express it as:
, [ase, [exclusions]]
though if you prefer.