This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: MIPS R3900 'bgt' with gcc 3.0/binutils 2.11.2
- To: jlarmour at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: MIPS R3900 'bgt' with gcc 3.0/binutils 2.11.2
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 18:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:27:19 +0100
> From: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour@redhat.com>
> Certainly at least. But I'm still unsure about bgtu or bgt in
> opcodes which, according to opcodes, are meant to be in MIPS I, and
> I'm not sure they really are.
If I'm not mistaken, they are macros. Is it a problem to have them as
macros?
> I don't think this fixed it - The test for TARGET_MIPS3900 was moved
> into ISA_HAS_BRANCHLIKELY, that's all. This patch by itself would
> remove all branch likelys for R3900s.
?
/* ISA has branch likely instructions (eg. mips2). */
/* Disable branchlikely for tx39 until compare rewrite. They haven't
been generated up to this point. */
#define ISA_HAS_BRANCHLIKELY (mips_isa != 1 \
/* || TARGET_MIPS3900 */)
I don't see how they wind up with branch likely instruction support.
mips I didn't have them, and the 3900 is a mips I part (mostly).
I'm sure Eric has more state than I.