This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add missing variants of rflt instruction
- From: Claudiu Zissulescu <claziss at gmail dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Graham Markall <graham dot markall at embecosm dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu dot Zissulescu at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:08:16 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARC] Add missing variants of rflt instruction
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1464770676-16094-1-git-send-email-graham dot markall at embecosm dot com> <b38af6e6-6bf4-b42a-c713-84964a092229 at redhat dot com>
Hi Nick,
On 01/06/16 17:35, Nick Clifton wrote:
Also - just out of curiosity - do you happen to know why these versions
of the rflt instruction were not implemented ? I am just wondering if
there was a good reason for the omission, or if it was just an accident,
or if this the tip of an unimplemented instruction iceberg...
Just a short note to your question for clarification purposes. Most of
the ARC processor instructions (and in particular the extensions ones
like the one in question) uses a very well defined syntax. For
3-operation instructions, this is:
OP<.f> Ra,Rb,Rc
OP<.f> 0, Rb,Rc
OP<.f><.cc> Rb,Rb,Rc
OP<.f> Ra,Rb,u6
OP<.f> 0, Rb,u6
OP<.f><.cc> Rb,Rb,u6
OP<.f> Rb,Rb,s12
OP<.f> Ra,LIMM,Rc
OP<.f> Ra,Rb,LIMM
OP<.f> 0, LIMM,Rc
OP<.f> 0, Rb,LIMM
OP<.f><.cc> Rb,Rb,LIMM
OP<.f><.cc> 0, LIMM,Rc
OP<.f> Ra,LIMM,u6
OP<.f> 0, LIMM,u6
OP<.f><.cc> 0, LIMM,u6
OP<.f> 0, LIMM,s12
OP<.f> Ra,LIMM,LIMM
OP<.f> 0, LIMM,LIMM
Now, it should be easy to generate tests for those instructions which
fall in this category and check if the assembler generates all the
variants as expected.
I do not try to answer your question, but to add information to the subject.
Best,
Claudiu