This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS EVA ASE Support
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery 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 19:17:23 +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> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1306101731150 dot 16287 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
No-one reading the comment would be in any doubt what a C initialiser is,
and the current version is easier to read. If it that's important to you,
though, go ahead.