linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: old binutils-2.13-msp.diff and binutils 2.19

To: Andrew Randrianasulu <randrik_a@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: old binutils-2.13-msp.diff and binutils 2.19
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:54:34 +0100
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <922652.90789.qm@web59801.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <922652.90789.qm@web59801.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Andrew Randrianasulu wrote:
> Hello. Sorry for asking this question - but while trying to move 
> forward this patch, i faced with duplicated opcode in
> opcodes/mips-ops.c One "vmulu" was defined for Octeon, and one -
> for SGI O2 VICE coprocessor. After commenting out one from Octeon
> - my [patched] binutils finally was able to pass gcc-3.4.6 compilation.
> I saw some duplicates in this file, apart from my case,  but i'm
> really unsure what to do in this case? Move patch parts around?
> But moving them in random order will break assembler, already learned
> this ....
> 
> Also I'm lost in gas/config/tc-mips.c Original patch was designed for
> (K, m, n) [i don't know what they mean .. some form of internal
> markers?]

Exactly that, their meaning is documented in include/opcode/mips.h

> and i changed it for (+K, +m,+n). But i'm really lost in those big
> switches there. Right now my new code disabled, looking at old patch
> i must add some logic before yet another switch. Where is the best
> place for discussing this - here or on gcc mail list?

Use binutils@sourceware.org


Thiemo

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