From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Henderson To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: cort@attis.cs.nmt.edu, gas2@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: ppc instructions in gas Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 20:13:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990506201322.A14952@cygnus.com> References: <19990504180843.A31050@attis.cs.nmt.edu> <19990505145806.H9469@cygnus.com> <19990505165232.A8594@attis.cs.nmt.edu> <19990506150724.A10994@cygnus.com> <19990507030530.10843.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990507030530.10843.qmail@daffy.airs.com> X-SW-Source: 1999/msg00102.html On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 03:05:30AM -0000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > I don't have the context of the original message. The addis/lis > instruction is documented to take a signed operand. I don't know why > it makes sense to remove PPC_OPERAND_SIGNED. Context is that gcc doesn't emit signed, and some of the ppc linux kernel sources don't use signed values either. This worked for ppc32 due to the PPC_OPERAND_SIGNOPT hack, and only showed up when Cort started work on ppc64. We iterated enough to conclude that we should in fact fix gcc, and the kernel sources. The one remaining question is whether to continue to silently accept unsigned values for ppc32, or whether we should warn for them. Thoughts on that last? r~