This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Support VU0 on MIPS R5900
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: JÃrgen Urban <JuergenUrban at gmx dot de>
- Cc: "binutils\ at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:32:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support VU0 on MIPS R5900
- References: <20130108234130 dot 27410 at gmx dot net> <87a9rrso6l dot fsf at talisman dot default> <trinity-c3dc44a3-27c5-482b-b113-ca0cae29d590-1375046137093 at 3capp-gmx-bs55> <87mwp39mfo dot fsf at talisman dot default> <76A90B6E-700D-4EE8-9BD4-D7EAB1B0D7D6 at gmx dot de> <87ob9f6mc3 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <B714A516-F16E-45A1-9026-DFC325166486 at gmx dot de>
JÃrgen Urban <JuergenUrban@gmx.de> writes:
> Am 03.08.2013 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Sandiford <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> JÃrgen Urban <JuergenUrban@gmx.de> writes:
>>> Am 31.07.2013 um 10:13 schrieb Richard Sandiford
>>>> "JÃrgen Urban" <JuergenUrban@gmx.de> 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 apply and your questions are no longer applicable (the patch is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
>>>> 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.
Thanks, now applied.