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]

Re: [patch] Arm FPA stfpls


On Wednesday 28 September 2005 15:15, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 16:42, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Patch ping:
> >
> > Ambiguous FPA mnemonics in unified assembly mode:
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00036.html
> >
> > Paul
>
> This wasn't quite what I had in mind, since it makes only the 'pl/ls'
> condition infix.  I think these instructions should be infix for all
> conditions, not just pl/ls.

Should we allow conditional postfixes for these instructions? If so should 
they trigger a warning?
Should we warn about conditional infixes in other FPA instructions?
Does this apply to all FPA instructions, or just stfp/ldfp?

I think the most consistent solution is to accept conditional infixes in all 
FPA instructions without warning, and either prohibit or emit a warning for 
conditional suffixes. Silently allowing conditional suffixes seems to be 
asking for trouble.

Paul


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