Re: [PATCH, RFC] arm: VMRS and VMSR should accept FPINST{,2}

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>]

On 08/04/13 16:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The Common VFP Subarchitecture specification has two more FP control registers
> which are to be accessed through VMRS and VMSR. The assembler, however, so far
> didn't provide a way to encode the respective instructions (other than through
> legacy mnemonics or the hard to read MRC/MCR ones).
>
> With Common VFP and VFP apparently not being the same thing, and there not
> being any way currently to specify the Common VFP Subarchitecture version, I
> tied acceptance of these registers to VFPv3 being enabled. The patch is RFC
> because of my need of confirmation whether that's acceptable, or whether
> there's a mechanism is failed to spot.
>
> gas/
> 2013-04-08  Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> 	* gas/config/tc-arm.c (do_vmrs): Also accept FPINST and FPINST2.
> 	(do_vmsr): Likewise.

The floating-point support code is littered with possible special cases 
like this.  The FPINST register has certainly existed since VFPv1 (on 
the ARM10) and FPINST2 since at least ARM11 (VFPv2), but it might even 
go back further -- the registers were implementation defined, not part 
of the architecture.

The legacy instructions (FMRX and FMXR) both accept these registers 
unconditionally, leaving it to the user to get things right.

My feeling is that we should do the same for VMSR and VMRS.  That is, if 
the register name parses ok, we should just accept the instruction, even 
if it's meaningless to execute.  Writing support code is a specialist 
task and we should trust users to know what they are doing in this area. 
 Caveat emptor and all that.

As with your other patches, we really should have some test cases for these.

R.