From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-sender-0.a4lg.com (mail-sender.a4lg.com [153.120.152.154]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E773858D38 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:52:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 50E773858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=irq.a4lg.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=irq.a4lg.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail-sender-0.a4lg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6330300089; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:52:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=irq.a4lg.com; s=2017s01; t=1664794332; bh=BlK6Zos2g/Qv28ao1qr7T4xpInqL3JZmpa2Z+h7Y3hM=; h=Message-ID:Date:Mime-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=plZtQpEv/mwVyT31vfrqVZE1U4v2A7ZhDMq2FmYexQaXnpHONGviuxrRJXrWXDlUF YBMouEyD+WveAWzjoe54MBmA/DZuuC6HbQ3m3rSV1NDOFdS2V1+I04c8gkMl2NwS7n nOlqixfrR0trA6QwRmYGVgUs5y9bAf+LQJchLVgc= Message-ID: <4cd4b039-c496-5e7b-18a5-8211cfe24dd3@irq.a4lg.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 19:52:11 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] opcodes/riscv: style csr names as registers Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew Burgess , binutils@sourceware.org References: <20221003101328.1790113-1-aburgess@redhat.com> From: Tsukasa OI In-Reply-To: <20221003101328.1790113-1-aburgess@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,GIT_PATCH_0,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2022/10/03 19:13, Andrew Burgess via Binutils wrote: > While reviewing another patch I noticed that RISC-V CSR names are > given the text style, not the register style. This patch fixes this > mistake. LGTM, from the author of "another patch". I felt it's not obvious as the rest and did not include in the first batch of my patchset. But I can definitely say that it is worth discussing about it and I agree with the change. Thanks, Tsukasa > --- > opcodes/riscv-dis.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/opcodes/riscv-dis.c b/opcodes/riscv-dis.c > index 6ac69490b78..031c19334fa 100644 > --- a/opcodes/riscv-dis.c > +++ b/opcodes/riscv-dis.c > @@ -547,7 +547,8 @@ print_insn_args (const char *oparg, insn_t l, bfd_vma pc, disassemble_info *info > } > > if (riscv_csr_hash[csr] != NULL) > - print (info->stream, dis_style_text, "%s", riscv_csr_hash[csr]); > + print (info->stream, dis_style_register, "%s", > + riscv_csr_hash[csr]); > else > print (info->stream, dis_style_text, "0x%x", csr); > break;