This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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] |
IMHO it would be better to fix the opcode table so that the unsupported insns don't match in the first place.
Hmm. That may make m68k-opc.c a bit ugly. Each CPU core is defined as an OR of one or more flags like m68000, cpu32, fido_a, etc in m68k_archs in tc-m68k.c. If we were to reject tbl instructions with the opcode table, I would have to treat fido as a new core. That is, I would have to define fido as fido_a, not cpu32|fido_a. In addition, I have to put fido_a everywhere we see cpu32 in m68k-opc.c. Normally, we don't have to worry about this problem because because people keep adding new instructions and do not remove instructions. I guess the m68k world is different. Neither CPU32 or ColdFire is a superset of m68000. Fido is not a strict superset of CPU32 either.
Thoughts?
Cheers Nick
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |