From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=f2Hd=5X=orcam.me.uk=macro@sourceware.org>
Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [78.133.224.34])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A001F3858D20
	for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 23:27:35 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A001F3858D20
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk
Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 295AD92009C; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 00:27:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2535292009B;
	Thu, 26 Jan 2023 23:27:33 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 23:27:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, 
    Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>, Jim Wilson <jim.wilson.gcc@gmail.com>, 
    Nelson Chu <nelson@rivosinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] RISC-V: prefer SLT{,U} aliases for SLTI{,U}
In-Reply-To: <9686b130-4ebe-cf3e-5108-55ecf18c2db9@suse.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2301262311490.8022@angie.orcam.me.uk>
References: <678b275f-1930-4a59-dfba-fe21cd548fca@suse.com> <95936261-d824-9128-1be9-ba7dfe12b042@suse.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2301150420040.50462@angie.orcam.me.uk> <f438b9f9-33fd-c569-8f35-5d03ac936265@suse.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2301161235380.50462@angie.orcam.me.uk>
 <54e213db-3268-e7b5-6f11-09dc14a1a49e@suse.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2301251513450.8022@angie.orcam.me.uk> <9686b130-4ebe-cf3e-5108-55ecf18c2db9@suse.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1163.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:

> This, I'm afraid, is again a biased view. ISA and assembly syntax aren't
> necessarily connected. See the (odd in my personal view) AT&T syntax which
> has been the favorite one in the Unix world for x86, yet is entirely
> disconnected from the ISA specifications coming from the relevant x86
> vendors (all using so called Intel syntax, which really dates back to
> MASM / TASM).

 I don't think this example is really good here.  AFAIK the AT&T syntax 
predates what Microsoft invented with MASM and said company is quite known 
for not respecting established standards, whether formal or de facto.

 NB I find the MASM dialect odd and excessively elaborate with its "WORD 
PTR", etc. constructs even though I knew it first (back in ~1991).  Most 
assembly language dialects I came across are actually closer to x86 AT&T 
than to MASM.

> [...] Of course an architecture is free to define a "preferred"
> assembly language, but I guess that's still distinct from the ISA spec,
> and I'm unaware of a specific assembly syntax spec for RISC-V (which
> Andrew's reply looks to support).

 However I think syntax shouldn't be changed in an ad-hoc manner, because 
we want consistency and existing software to continue working.  We've had 
RISC-V support 6 years now in upstream binutils, so one can't really say 
it's still in its infancy anymore.

 FWIW,

  Maciej