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 976A43857005 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:26:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 976A43857005 Received: from localhost.localdomain (xry111.site [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 BE92A6681A; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 09:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] opcodes: LoongArch: add "ret" instruction to reduce typing From: Xi Ruoyao To: WANG Xuerui , binutils@sourceware.org Cc: Chenghua Xu , Zhensong Liu , WANG Xuerui Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:26:06 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20220727110757.2520234-3-i.swmail@xen0n.name> References: <20220727110757.2520234-1-i.swmail@xen0n.name> <20220727110757.2520234-3-i.swmail@xen0n.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD, LIKELY_SPAM_FROM, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, 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 X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:26:11 -0000 On Wed, 2022-07-27 at 19:07 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > From: WANG Xuerui >=20 > This syntactic sugar is present in both classical and emerging > architectures, like Alpha, SPARC and RISC-V, and assembler macros > doing the same thing can already be found in the wild e.g. [1], proving > the feature's popularity. It's better to provide support directly in the > assembler so downstream users wouldn't have to re-invent this over and > over again. Maybe an off-topic question: should we document the syntactic sugars in LoongArch-Documentation.git? I've already seen at least 3 different "re-invented `move`" :(. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University