This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com 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]

Re: [PATCH] Handle mtsprg and mfsprg properly for BookE



On Mar 8, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Alan Modra wrote:


On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 08:20:21PM -0500, Jeff Baker wrote:
> Would it be correct to change the generic PPC_OPCODE_BOOKE case to
> always use user mode sprg2+ and then override it to be sprg3+ for
> PPC_OPCODE_403 and PPC_OPCODE_440?? Should there be a version of mtsprg3
> for e500 and MPC8560 that encodes 259 instead of 275?


That's what _you_ need to research.? If you can decide on the correct
 mapping of sprg number to spr number for a given processor, and defend
 your mapping against potential criticism, I'm more than happy to help
 correct an implementation.

Hmm, looking over your patch again, I suppose you could simply say that
your mapping of sprg number to spr number matches the existing gas
opcodes.? ie.? "mfsprg 0,4" generates the same as "mfsprg4 0" and so on.
Enumerate all the possibilities in an addition to the testsuite, and
you've made that obvious.? If you fix the formatting, correct the error
messages, and extend the testsuite this way I'll accept the patch.? I'll
also still be worried that gas isn't generating the right opcodes, but
I suppose that's another issue..

I'm confused what the correctness concern is. The only subject that is up in the air is if SPRG3 (SPR #259) should allow read access on some book-e implementations. It would seem allowing this is more broad and leaves the decision up to the user.


- kumar
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]