This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: include/dis-asm.h patch for cgen disassemblers
> cagney wrote:
>
>
>> The PS2 has a number of ISAs on a single chip. [...]
>
>
> I hope you're not just yanking my chain. You should realize that
> the PS2 processor chip is more of a system-on-a-chip, with distinct
> processors on one die. The fact that they are on the same chip
> is a fabrication decision, absurd to contemplate during bfd modelling.
What has a fabrication decision got to do with this? The PS2 is a
number of different ISAs that happen to be on a single chip.
I'm contending that this is correctly modeled within BFD as separate
BFD_ARCH's. If it isn't then the documentation, at least, for BFD is wrong.
You appear to contend that it is correctly modeled as a single bfd_arch
and a number of different bfd_machs. This might be well and good,
however, it, in my opinion, fundamentally changes the definition of a
bfd_arch / mach. In particular a bfd_arch no longer refers to an ISA
but rather a system.
>> that would be #2 above. The question is then, is this the most
>> applicable model and acceptable to BFD/BINUTILS? [...]
>
>
> I don't really care -- it has no bearing on the current issue.
It has direct bearing on the current issue. Your response to the above
illustrates this. You appear to suggest that it is absurd to model an
architecture like the PS2 correctly. Why?
The objective here is to sort out bfd_architecutre / machine and this
new thingie of yours and determine exactly how they all relate to each
other.
Once that is resolved, the field name should just fall out.
> Maybe you are confusing the term "ISA" with the concept of a
> "manual" or "book". Maybe you are confusing an overall
> architecture by a list of instructions that some implementation
> of some architecture may execute in some modes. Maybe you are
> confusing my intent of using the "isas" field (to identify subsets
> of the instruction sets implemented by the current arch/mach) with
> some imagined plan to replace arch/mach.
Who knows what you're doing. You haven't posted any thing updating the
documentation and clarifying this.
> Please get unconfused, for example by thinking about the
> relationship between arm & thumb instructions. Hint: a single
> program can contain both. Such an executable file can be
> marked with a single bfd_arch/mach tag pair. The processor
> switches its interpretation of instruction memory contents
> based upon internal run-time state.
And? Try, instruction_subsets then? I have strong reservations over
isa as it and bfd_architecture are badly overloaded.
Can I assume, for instance, that INSTRUCTION_SUBSETS, wouldn't be used
to select orthogonal ISAs that run on different compute engines?
Andrew