From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7785B38582BA for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 04:55:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7785B38582BA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 7785B38582BA Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=89.208.246.23 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701838541; cv=none; b=DDOqARIbAe6w8OFnBLTqOyYuQCl1WQC31IUjvYHRGkflWQLmKoJ37UbeydTtoNLWgsJ8g7FhHNuBOjYtqtE/jh8NLldqt3bFb+To+utWF3LUYA+Ck73A3aHFyIb6OaAa7yA8EAje6No6vQn8P0L/0JtVwkuVddepQ6Kvk3H2J9Q= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701838541; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rz/ECwd442bSeHJ4TeDI9fMouqnNS/5yBcwuNSc6y44=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:MIME-Version; b=tqGoj76FS27y5GfEdZDWkeTa44q4wBu0Pdjjgj7wupIIIJTz/7ALLvv0KTPsN5FLZIIfE2TYjlCPWuuXxcTEN3qIVQBMizZC72gfgweqpuU7r+SXETVNXryiZ45tJ4TiSjeHuzlNOy8Sh+gEO4GCjc1WYiwN1eqKgxdXEaJvHUM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xry111.site; s=default; t=1701838539; bh=rz/ECwd442bSeHJ4TeDI9fMouqnNS/5yBcwuNSc6y44=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ADc+lmdZip68BtyVoVk62PGySh7Ve/M0B6FkSgBaqG1+5I+slZN2IRuKEFtNcbP+q xwNUTQnmzN/wbsQV+0NTyku1X4Zj8id4XrjcSuKej5FAunEKEuXD5CLdUXRMEQsld1 pfSM/HTGjsooKS0ynf6dERu8A5a9Gfl6KUkxhsSM= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F210766BA1; Tue, 5 Dec 2023 23:55:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: Add support for b ".L1" and beq "$t0", "$t1", ".L1" From: Xi Ruoyao To: Fangrui Song , mengqinggang Cc: WANG Xuerui , binutils@sourceware.org, xuchenghua@loongson.cn, chenglulu@loongson.cn, liuzhensong@loongson.cn, cailulu@loongson.cn, maskray@google.com Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 12:55:34 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20231206031724.2330403-1-mengqinggang@loongson.cn> Autocrypt: addr=xry111@xry111.site; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=mDMEYnkdPhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAsY+HvJs3EVKpwIu2gN89cQT/pnrbQtlvd6Yfq7egugi0HlhpIFJ1b3lhbyA8eHJ5MTExQHhyeTExMS5zaXRlPoiTBBMWCgA7FiEEkdD1djAfkk197dzorKrSDhnnEOMFAmJ5HT4CGwMFCwkIBwICIgIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgcCF4AACgkQrKrSDhnnEOPHFgD8D9vUToTd1MF5bng9uPJq5y3DfpcxDp+LD3joA3U2TmwA/jZtN9xLH7CGDHeClKZK/ZYELotWfJsqRcthOIGjsdAPuDgEYnkdPhIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQG+HnNiPZseiBkzYBHwq/nN638o0NPwgYwH70wlKMZhRAwEIB4h4BBgWCgAgFiEEkdD1djAfkk197dzorKrSDhnnEOMFAmJ5HT4CGwwACgkQrKrSDhnnEOPjXgD/euD64cxwqDIqckUaisT3VCst11RcnO5iRHm6meNIwj0BALLmWplyi7beKrOlqKfuZtCLbiAPywGfCNg8LOTt4iMD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,LIKELY_SPAM_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 Tue, 2023-12-05 at 19:45 -0800, Fangrui Song wrote: > > > diff --git a/gas/testsuite/gas/loongarch/double_quotation_marks.s b/g= as/testsuite/gas/loongarch/double_quotation_marks.s > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000000..bb8acb99a40 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/loongarch/double_quotation_marks.s > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > > +# Before only support beq $t0, $t1, .L1 > > > +beq "$t0", "$t1", ".L1" > > May you provide some explanation as to this feature's intended use case= ? >=20 > Agree >=20 > > Because it seems pointless otherwise without some kind of scenario > > that's both valuable to support and impossible to do so without this > > feature... >=20 > I think it will be consistent (with other architectures) to support > quoted symbols (".L1"), but it would be odd to support quoted > registers. Just curiously: why did the other architectures have to support quoted symbols anyway? --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University