This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Add MIPS ufr macro instruction
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Andrew Bennett <Andrew dot Bennett at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>, "binutils\ at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:37:54 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add MIPS ufr macro instruction
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774C835E at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <87vc01erxi dot fsf at talisman dot default> <87siuzcpp4 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774CB15B at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774CE268 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <8738mm3pgb dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1311241820110 dot 21686 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982774DAC1A at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org>
Andrew Bennett <Andrew.Bennett@imgtec.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > The problem with using ufr for disassembly is that AFAICT it isn't
>> > mentioned in the manuals. People disassembling pass-me-downs might
>> > struggle to know what it means. Maybe the ideal would be to disassemble
>> > the CTC1 normally and add a comment "; ufr " next to it. But that's
>> > probably make-work.
>> > So TBH I preferred your original patch.
>> > There haven't been any more objections, so if you're still OK with the
>> > original version, I suggest we go with that. I can apply it for you if so.
>> Apologies for late coming, I missed this thread. I object. I think it
>> would make more sense if we followed the practice already established with
>> CP0 register names and instead defined cooked names for CP1 control
>> registers as well. E.g.:
>> ctc1 $0, $c1_ufr
>> ctc1 $0, $c1_unfr
>> cfc1 $2, $c1_ufr
>> or suchlike. I think it would be more obvious, user friendly (including
>> disassembly) and consistent. If we wanted $0 implied for cases where
>> applicable we could define single-argument aliases, e.g.:
>> ctc1 $c1_ufr
>> ctc1 $c1_unfr
>> preferably as macros as far as I'm concerned (although I'm not too
>> enthusiastic about such aliases in the first place).
>> Of course we'd add the rest at the same time too, i.e. $c1_fir, $c1_fcsr,
> I like this solution. Firstly, it makes it much easier to see what the c[ft]c1
> instruction is actually doing when either assembling or disassembling.
> it is clear when a ufr instruction is being used, so I don't think it
> requires the
> need to have an explicit ufr macro.
> If everyone is happy with this I will rework the patch, and post it back on to
> the list.
Thanks, soounds good to me too.