This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: More mips3264 support
- To: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: More mips3264 support
- From: cgd at broadcom dot com
- Date: 03 Aug 2001 11:21:20 -0700
- cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <995717531.23476.24.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com><mailpost.995714090.17770@postal.sibyte.com><yov51yn83kbn.fsf@highland.sibyte.com><996576470.3729.49.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com>
"Eric Christopher" <echristo@redhat.com> writes:
> cgd wrote:
> > > * mips-dis.c: Add support for bfd_mach_mipsisa32 and
> > > bfd_mach_mipsisa64.
> >
> > puzzled about these (and the related changes elsewhere that use them).
> > "MIPS32 and MIPS64 ISA" is what the existing bfd_mach_mips5 and
> > bfd_mach_mips64 were meant to address.
actually, there was a typo there; the first was supposed to be
bfd_mach_mips32.
> > Why are new constants needed? Am I missing something Subtle here?
> >
> > (mips64isa is a name in mips_cpu_info_table in gas only because
> > historically mips64 is taken.)
> >
> > As target names go, I think i'm fine with mipsisa64, though, so stuff
> > related to adding that is OK by me.
> >
>
> Yes. Basically using MIPS32 and MIPS64 ISA are, IMO, confusing. This
> way we've separated out the base core (isa32 and isa64) for the newer
> versions of the assembler/compiler.
Not sure what this means in terms of changes to the source.
If you plan to keep the bfd_mach_mipsisa32 & bfd_mach_mipsisa64
constant names, i suggest you do the same for bfd_mach_mipsisa5, and
nuke the bfd_mach_mips{32,64}. Shouldn't need both sets, since the
latter are meant to describe the ISAs rather than particular
processors.
> Anyhow, I'll produce another set for you and Nick to comment on as soon
> as I'm able to remerge all of my changes.
Great! 8-)
chris