This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [PATCHv4] Add support for O32 FPXX ABI
- From: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, "Moore, Catherine" <Catherine_Moore at mentor dot com>, "macro at codesourcery dot com" <macro at codesourcery dot com>, "Joseph Myers (joseph at codesourcery dot com)" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:33:41 +0000
- Subject: RE: [PATCHv4] Add support for O32 FPXX ABI
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320EB4042 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <87fvhnma8u dot fsf at talisman dot default> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320EB4A44 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <871tt5urqn dot fsf at googlemail dot com>
This is now committed. Tested with mips(64)?el?-linux-gnu
and mips(64)?-mti-elf. Thanks for all the work on this Richard.
Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> writes:
> Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> writes:
> > but the bigger reason is that the micromips mtc1/mfc1 instructions are
> > not INSN_COPROC_MOVE_DELAY so there is no flag to detect them. This
> > has never been a problem before as there has always been 32 single
> > precision registers for micromips but now that may be restricted to 16
> > depending on ABI. I could just attach a new flag to the micromips
> > instructions which lack any other flag but it seems clearer to attach
> > it to the others too. The only other option is to add
> > INSN_COPROC_MOVE_DELAY to the mtc1/mfc1 instructions in micromips even
> > though that is something of a lie. What do you think is cleanest?
> I think the last one is probably best. We could remove the _DELAY
> from the name too, since the delay is only conditional anyway.
I'll leave a rename to a separate commit.
> > I would also like to get rid of all the ctc1/cfc1/cttc1/cftc1
> > that allow the use of floating point register names: $f0. The problem
> > these is that they don't actually write floating point registers but
> > will interact with the oddspreg logic as their operands have type
> > OP_REG_FP. Anything relying on ctc1 $0, $f[0-31] is probably expecting
> > wrong thing to happen anyway. If that's OK I'll do a separate patch?
> It's always dangerous to change something long-standing like that, but
> I agree it's weird. OTOH "ctc1 $0, $31" could be seen as confusing too
> (it isn't GPR 31).
> Let's assume it's OK for now and see if there are any objections.
I'll do this as a separate commit as well.