From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16431 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2004 10:39:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16326 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2004 10:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Oct 2004 10:39:54 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9TAdntZ031663 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:39:49 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9TAdnr30492; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:39:49 -0400 Received: from [172.31.0.98] (vpnuser8.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.8]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9TAdiuN025531; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:39:46 -0400 Message-ID: <41821F69.4020604@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:39:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040803) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Oliva CC: Andrew STUBBS , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Broken SH2a patches References: <009501c4b146$6e624ea0$180f81a4@uk.w2k.superh.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00459.txt.bz2 Hi Alex, Hi Andrew, >>Hi Alexandre, >>A (long) while back you send this message: >>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-07/msg00439.html >>Have you made any progress with this problem yet? > Erhm... Sort of. I got Nick to promise to look into the issues, and > then didn't worry about them any more. Err, you did ? It must have been while I was drunk... > Nick, I take it that you didn't make any progress on them? That would be correct. Anyway as I understand it the problem is that the inheritance tree in sh-opc.h does not include the SH2A, right ? Judging from Alex's and Andrew's comments there are two possible fixes for this, a simple one that just adds the SH2A-nofpu and SH2A inheritance off the SH2E: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /* Below are the 'architecture sets'. They describe the following inheritance graph: SH1 | SH2 .------------'|`--------------------. / | \ SH-DSP SH3-nommu SH2E | |`--------. |`--------. | | \ | \ | SH3 SH4-nommu-nofpu | | | | | | | | .------------'|`----------+---------. | | |/ / \| | | | .-------' | | | |/ | | SH3-dsp SH4-nofpu SH3E SH2A-nofpu | |`--------------------. | | | | \| | | SH4A-nofpu SH4 SH2A | .------------' `--------------------. | |/ \| SH4AL-dsp SH4A ------------------------------------------------------------------------- And a complex one that invents a fake intermediate architecture to show the fact that the SH4, SH4A and SH2A share some instructions. To my mind however there is no satisfactory way of showing this, and instead I would like to suggest using a dotted line to show partial inheritance: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- /* Below are the 'architecture sets'. They describe the following inheritance graph: (The .... between SH4A and SH2A-nofpu is a partial inheritance). SH1 | SH2 .------------'|`--------------------. / | \ SH-DSP SH3-nommu SH2E | |`--------. |`------. | | \ | \ | SH3 SH4-nommu-nofpu | | | | | | | | .------------'|`----------+---------. | | |/ / \| | | | .-------' | | | |/ | | SH3-dsp SH4-nofpu SH3E | | |`--------------------. | | | | \| | | SH4A-nofpu SH4 | | .------------' `--------------------. | | |/ \| | SH4AL-dsp SH4A | . | ......... | . | SH2A-no-fpu | SH2A ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think ? Cheers Nick