This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Fix some MIPS operand typos
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:09:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: Fix some MIPS operand typos
- References: <87ip144md0 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1306252323450 dot 16287 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <87obat2vp8 dot fsf at talisman dot default>
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.