This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [AArch64] PR target/20666, fix wrong encoding of new introduced BFC pseudo
On 07/11/16 12:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
Hmm.. The types update might be fine, as there will be a
aarch64_replace_opcode call for
all such opcode conversion, but the qualifier is not handled so there
might be hiding issues.
On 07.11.16 at 13:22, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 07/11/16 11:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.10.16 at 18:40, <email@example.com> wrote:
On 24/11/15 11:17, Matthew Wahab wrote:
2015-11-24 Matthew Wahab <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* aarch64-asm-2.c: Regenerate.
* aarch64-asm.c (convert_bfc_to_bfm): New.
There looks like a copy & paste error in this function, and caused PR
+convert_bfc_to_bfm (aarch64_inst *inst)
+ int64_t lsb, width;
+ /* Insert XZR. */
+ copy_operand_info (inst, 3, 2);
+ copy_operand_info (inst, 2, 1);
+ copy_operand_info (inst, 2, 0);
^~~~~~~ should be "0".
Why 0? That makes this particular copy_operand_info() invocation
a no-op afaict. Aiui you mean 1 here instead.
I mean 0 there. as "BFC Xd, lsb, width" is the simplified form of
"BFI Xd, XZR, lsb, width".
Operands 1 is forced to XZR by the following code:
inst->operands.reg.regno = 0x1f;
No, that only changes the register number, not the actual operand
type (which is still an immediate). The copy_operand_info() with 1
as the second argument would clone operand 0 (which already is a
register) and then update the register number. Only that will
guarantee a full fledged register operand (in case any other entity
cares to look at it).
Do you mind sending a patch for this?