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: objdump's ARM instruction names messed up in latest versions?

From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at buzzard dot freeserve dot co dot uk>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, chris at seberino dot org
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:29 +0100
Subject: Re: objdump's ARM instruction names messed up in latest versions?
References: <20090616173436.GA26934@seberino.org> <20090616174504.GA17564@caradoc.them.org> <200906161945.01418.paul@codesourcery.com>

On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 19:45 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > I don't know why that involved moving the condition codes around - it
> > may have been to make things more uniform.
> 
> It is. In some cases[1] the mnemonics are ambiguous depending where you put 
> the condition code, so the assembly syntax was changed to consistently put the 
> condition code at the end.
> 
> Paul
> 
> [1] Only FPA instructions AFAIK.
> 

I think it was just one FPA instruction that was affected by this, but
its name escapes me at the moment.  Nevertheless, since FPA is
essentially obsolete now, that shouldn't be a problem to anyone coding
new assembly files today.

R.

References:
- objdump's ARM instruction names messed up in latest versions?
  - From: chris
- Re: objdump's ARM instruction names messed up in latest versions?
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: objdump's ARM instruction names messed up in latest versions?
  - From: Paul Brook

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