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: [PATCH] Support VU0 on MIPS R5900

Am 03.08.2013 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Sandiford <>:

> JÃrgen Urban <> writes:
>> Am 31.07.2013 um 10:13 schrieb Richard Sandiford <>:
>>> "JÃrgen Urban" <> writes:
>>>> ragnarok2040 is busy and wasn't able to finish the work. So I took over
>>>> the work. The binutils changed in the meantime. So the old patch doesn't
>>>> apply and your questions are no longer applicable (the patch is
>>>> completely changed). I couldn't find a way to work the old stuff in,
>>>> because the new binutils are very different. So I decided to add it
>>>> without special support for suffixes. All suffixes are listed instead in
>>>> the mips opcode table, so the suffixes will work without special suffix
>>>> support. I think this was the intented way that binutils was designed
>>>> for.
>>> Well, I'm not sure there's really a precedent either way.  These VU0
>>> instructions are pretty idiosyncratic.  Things like .ob vs. .qh for MDMX
>>> and .s/.d/.ps for FP are similar, but there are different requirements
>>> for when you can use those (no .qh for VR5400, no .ps until MIPS V, etc.)
>>> In this case the suffix is really just an operand that happens to be part
>>> of the mnemonic, so I preferred your original approach of dealing with the
>>> suffixes programmatically.  Certainly....
>>>> The result is that the patch adds 1527 instructions.
>>> ...this seems far too many :-)
>>> The easiest way of dealing with it would be to have a pinfo/pinfo2 bit
>>> to say that the suffix is required.  Unfortunately there are none left
>>> that we can use.
>>> I'm close to finishing a series of patches to further rework the opcode
>>> table and free up more bits.  Those patches again interfere with yours,
>>> sorry.  Rather than ask you to make another wholesale change, I've locally
>>> reworked your patch to apply on top of the other ones and to make it
>>> use the pinfo2 approach.
>> I would appreciate it. I am hoping that it gets finally in.
> Here's the patch I'd like to apply.  Does it look OK to you?

The patch is OK and thanks for your work.

Best regards

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