This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Fix some MIPS operand typos

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> > binutils-mips-include-ops-doc.diff
> > Index: binutils-fsf-trunk-quilt/include/opcode/mips.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- binutils-fsf-trunk-quilt.orig/include/opcode/mips.h	2013-06-25 01:09:04.000000000 +0100
> > +++ binutils-fsf-trunk-quilt/include/opcode/mips.h	2013-06-25 23:50:55.211225703 +0100
> > @@ -441,14 +441,14 @@ struct mips_opcode
> >     "W" 5 bit same register used as floating target and destination (OP_*_FT)
> >  
> >     Coprocessor instructions:
> > -   "E" 5 bit target register (OP_*_RT)
> > -   "G" 5 bit destination register (OP_*_RD)
> > +   "E" 5 bit general register (OP_*_RT)
> > +   "G" 5 bit coprocessor register (OP_*_RD)
> "E" is a coprocessor register, not a general register.


> The current "E" seems fine to me.  It's consistent with "t", etc.,
> and we have RD_t for a reason.

 That refers to the field name, that stays the same across the instruction 
set, and not its function with a particular set of opcodes though.

> In case this response tempts you to try a wholesale edit of the format
> comments: please hold off for now.  The reason I noticed in the first
> place is that I'm working on a series to change the way we handle this
> stuff, and that series might well und up changing these comments anyway.
> I just wanted to fix wrong info as I found it.


> I applied the patch below, which includes another mismatch I found later.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]