This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] AMD bdver2 processors 1/2 - BMI
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Quentin Neill <quentin dot neill dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:35:56 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] AMD bdver2 processors 1/2 - BMI
- References: <AANLkTim1Vi--MmdH91TX7Wyto9T16Y3DoGnKX05Kw5dK@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=1Hxuqe319svSyFnym5orYxq0pn4wPw3s3jJ7g@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTincZ2UA_cM-o9=Wsu+ucQDES=-tRvS+Bg9eY=+3@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin6gDhYPmPvRNU-uwFRPrLgR4_ZYytHHA2apG8V@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim8N=sACQ5tDa360KQnHRUnL-y9Txf7DZjS5=dq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTineZkJXOZnS4LdQoApDs-ON3OaZgqOxCMcdFvF_@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Quentin Neill
<quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:10 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:53 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Quentin Neill
>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 16:32, Quentin Neill
>>>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> These two patches add support for BMI and TBM ISAs to be introduced in
>>>>>> AMD bdver2 processors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The full encoding specification is delayed, however I have posted
>>>>>> abbreviated specs on the gcc mailing list:
>>>>>> BMI: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01766.html
>>>>>> TBM: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01767.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like your patch is reversed. ?Could you please send another one
>>>>> that you get from git format-patch -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Sebastian
>>>>
>>>> Oops. ?Reposting with reversed patch. ?Thanks for reviewing Sebastian.
>>>> --
>>>> Quentin
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please don't add ModrmRegExt, There are many examples in i386-opt.tbl
>>> without ModrmRegExt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You should check i.tm.extension_opcode != None instead.
>>
>> --
>> H.J.
>
> Hi H.J.,
> Thanks for the feedback.
> So you are saying remove ModrmRegExt from both patches, right?
Yes.
--
H.J.