Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 08:53 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> > The macro system we use cannot do that (it will prefix with REG_), >> since >> > both arguments are registers we must use R0 in this case. >> >> So define a ___PPC_RA0 macro that doesn't do that. > > But then we lose the checking for other instructions :-)
??? There is no loss of checking for instructions that do not use ___PPC_RA0. > Unless we start being nasty and defining a different macro form for RA > which can be 0... That's what ___PPC_RA0 is all about. > I'd rather not go there unless we absolutely have to... Having to use R0 for an insn that does *not* use r0 is clearly a step backwards. > What would be nice also would be if we had a gas option to enforce the > use of % for register names. If gas is ever changed that way you have to be explict about 0 vs. %r0 anyway. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
