search

riscvarchive / riscv-binutils-gdb

RISC-V backports for binutils-gdb. Development is done upstream at the FSF.
GNU General Public License v2.0
147 stars 233 forks source link

z subset parsing V2 #178

Closed mablinov closed 4 years ago

mablinov commented 4 years ago

I've taken the previous branch, rebased it on the now newly rebased riscv-bitmanip master branch, and squashed the small bugfix commits. It ended up being a bit ugly because half of it was already upstream, but I think it should be ok.

Those tests that it does not pass are tests that test the old-style of parsing, so it is correct that they are now failing. These are:

gas/riscv/march-ok-s-with-version gas/riscv/march-ok-s gas/riscv/march-ok-sx

I will ofcourse fix these, its just that I instinctively pressed control-enter, which opened the pull request as I was midway writing it...

mablinov commented 4 years ago

Thanks for reviewing Kito, I've incorporated your changes.

mablinov commented 4 years ago

Do you mind split Z* paring support for -march and removing sx into standalone patch and upstream that?

Do you mean: strip out the bitmanip stuff, upstream that, merge back into here, and then apply bitmanip-specifics?

kito-cheng commented 4 years ago

Do you mind split Z* paring support for -march and removing sx into standalone patch and upstream that?

Do you mean: strip out the bitmanip stuff, upstream that, merge back into here, and then apply bitmanip-specifics?

Yes, because I think other extension might need that, like Ztso, Zam, Zifencei, Zicsr in latest unprivileged spec, and Vector extension also defined some Zv* extensions.

It would be great if this part go upstream first if you have time :)

cliffordwolf commented 4 years ago

It would be great if this part go upstream first if you have time :)

I agree with that. I'd like to have as little non-bitmanip specific code introduced through this branch as possible.

cliffordwolf commented 4 years ago

I agree with that. I'd like to have as little non-bitmanip specific code introduced through this branch as possible.

But we can merge this now and I'll just rebase our branch once the non-bitmanip functionality was upstreamed independently. Just let me know what you'd prefer @mablinov.

mablinov commented 4 years ago

@cliffordwolf I would really appreciate it if you guys could merge it into bitmanip. I'll send it upstream, but this is a major user-facing change that will probably take a lot of time to convince people to move over to.