[Bug gas/5457] INTOUCH instruction incorrectly disassembled.
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-12-21 17:13 --- Hi Jonathan, Sorry - the revised patch does not work. The problem is that the new instruction patterns include specific numbering for the cache selection, but the assembler does not know which pattern to choose. For example try assembling this test case: .text cpushl %ic,(%a1) cpushl %dc,(%a1) cpushl %bc,(%a1) intouch %a1 and then disassembling the resulting object file. I get: 0: f4e9cpushl bc,%a1@ 2: f469cpushl dc,%a1@ 4: f4e9cpushl bc,%a1@ 6: Address 0x0008 is out of bounds. I think that you may need to define a new opcode operator, one like 'c' but which only accepts 'ic','dc' or 'bc' and then use this. Cheers Nick PS. Incidentally it would be great if you could include a new gas testsuite test in any future patch which would check to make sure that the syntax is parsed and disassembled correctly -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5457 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
Re: [Bug gas/5457] INTOUCH instruction incorrectly disassembled.
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 17:13 +, nickc at redhat dot com wrote: > --- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-12-21 17:13 > --- > I think that you may need to define a new opcode operator, one like 'c' but > which only accepts 'ic','dc' or 'bc' and then use this. > PS. Incidentally it would be great if you could include a new gas testsuite > test > in any future patch which would check to make sure that the syntax is parsed > and > disassembled correctly It certainly would, but as I explained early on, I don't quite know how to do this. I'll try to use some existing test case as a model and see what I can do. Meanwhile, support for coldfire in GDB looks pretty borked too. Before I go duplicating effort, does anybody know who is maintaining GDB and binutils coldfire? I will ask on the GDB list as well. shap ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5457] INTOUCH instruction incorrectly disassembled.
--- Additional Comments From shap at eros-os dot com 2007-12-21 18:13 --- Subject: Re: INTOUCH instruction incorrectly disassembled. On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 17:13 +, nickc at redhat dot com wrote: > --- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-12-21 17:13 > --- > I think that you may need to define a new opcode operator, one like 'c' but > which only accepts 'ic','dc' or 'bc' and then use this. > PS. Incidentally it would be great if you could include a new gas testsuite > test > in any future patch which would check to make sure that the syntax is parsed > and > disassembled correctly It certainly would, but as I explained early on, I don't quite know how to do this. I'll try to use some existing test case as a model and see what I can do. Meanwhile, support for coldfire in GDB looks pretty borked too. Before I go duplicating effort, does anybody know who is maintaining GDB and binutils coldfire? I will ask on the GDB list as well. shap -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5457 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
