From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8260 invoked by alias); 25 May 2006 13:28:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 8252 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2006 13:28:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:28:14 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FjFsp-00084v-D3; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:28:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ben Elliston Cc: Richard Sandiford , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Coldfire fmovem fixes Message-ID: <20060525132811.GB31002@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ben Elliston , Richard Sandiford , binutils@sourceware.org References: <20060524004418.GA1912@ozlabs.au.ibm.com> <20060525155134.A16253@mailhub.air.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060525155134.A16253@mailhub.air.net.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00460.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 03:51:34PM +1000, Ben Elliston wrote: > Hi Richard > > > include/opcodes/ > > * m68k.h (mcf_mask): Define. > > > > opcodes/ > > * m68k-opc.c (m68k_opcodes): Fix the masks of the Coldfire fmovemd > > and fmovem entries. Put register list entries before immediate > > mask entries. Use "l" rather than "L" in the fmovem entries. > > * m68k-dis.c (match_insn_m68k): Remove the PRIV argument and work it > > out from INFO. > > (m68k_scan_mask): New function, split out from... > > (print_insn_m68k): ...here. If no architecture has been set, > > first try printing an m680x0 instruction, then try a Coldfire one. > > > > gas/testsuite/ > > * gas/m68k/mcf-fpu.s: Add fmovemd and fmovem instructions. > > * gas/m68k/mcf-fpu.d: Adjust accordingly. > > OK. I'm undecided about whether this warrants committing to the 2.17 > branch. I'll leave that to Daniel to decide. Seems reasonable to me; this is OK for the branch. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery