linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP...

To: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl
Subject: Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP...
From: cgd@broadcom.com
Date: 11 Jun 2004 12:27:37 -0700
Cc: "David Daney" <ddaney@avtrex.com>, "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <mailpost.1086981251.16853@news-sj1-1>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <40C9F5A4.2050606@avtrex.com> <40C9F5FE.8030607@avtrex.com> <40C9F7F0.50501@avtrex.com> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0406112039040.13062@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <mailpost.1086981251.16853@news-sj1-1>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
At Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:14:11 +0000 (UTC), "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
> 2. Gas should definitely use the codes consistently.  And it's a pity the
> ABI got broken -- I think another mnemonic should have been chosen for the
> correct implementation of "break", available to any ISA.

in retrospect, the 'B' variation probably wasn't the greatest idea.

If it were removed (leaving 'c' and 'c','q' variations), I don't know
that any real harm would occur.

It may be very confusing to people who expect that the break code will
translate into the instruction in an obvious way, and obviously it
would mess up use of 20-bit codes, but i don't know how prevalent that
is.

Unfortunately, at this point, Linux should probably accept the
divide-by-zero code in both locations.


(Really, from day one, assemblers probably should have accepted a
20-bit code.  I just checked my copy of the Kane r2000/r3000 book, and
it was 20-bit all the way back then.  If i had to guess, i'd guess
that gas was copying a non-gnu assembler's behaviour.  In any case,
water under the bridge.)



cgd


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>