Re: [Mspgcc-users] assembler vs extension words

2016-02-03 Thread David W. Schultz
On 02/03/2016 06:29 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: >> directives. objdump produced: >> >> rpt r15 { rrcx.wr6 >> >> Which is almost but not quite correct because it ignores the little >> detail of the extension word having the ZC bit set. > > True - this is really the same bug. GAS is not encoding RR

Re: [Mspgcc-users] assembler vs extension words

2016-02-03 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi Peter, > Just to note: this list doesn't transport patches. Sorry. Darn. David - would you be willing to file a binutils bug report about this problem here: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Then I can respond, upload the patch and you can test it out to make sure that I have not missed a

Re: [Mspgcc-users] assembler vs extension words

2016-02-03 Thread Peter Bigot
Just to note: this list doesn't transport patches. Sorry. Peter (still lurking, no longer active) On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi David, > > I am having some trouble using the rpt functionality of the CPUX. While >> attempting to assemble some code for the msp430fr5969

Re: [Mspgcc-users] assembler vs extension words

2016-02-03 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi David, I am having some trouble using the rpt functionality of the CPUX. While attempting to assemble some code for the msp430fr5969 I was surprised with this error: repeat count cannot be used with rrux In response to: rpt r15 { rrux.w r6 Oops - this is definitely a bug. You should rep

[Mspgcc-users] assembler vs extension words

2016-02-02 Thread David W. Schultz
I am having some trouble using the rpt functionality of the CPUX. While attempting to assemble some code for the msp430fr5969 I was surprised with this error: repeat count cannot be used with rrux In response to: rpt r15 { rrux.w r6 This was surprising because the example in slau367 for rrux sho