https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26051
Jim Wilson <wilson at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |wilson at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed| |2020-06-01 CC| |wilson at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson <wilson at gcc dot gnu.org> --- +@itemx I type for loads: .insn i opcode, func3, rd, simm12(rs1) The .insn parsing code doesn't know whether we have a load or not, so this syntax is actually valid both for loads and non-loads, likewise with the other syntax. We should include this line, but I think the "for loads" part should be dropped. None of the other descriptions have similar text mentioning instruction type. +@item S type: .insn s opcode, func3, rs2, simm12(rs1) This looks right. For completeness we might want an alternate syntax that accepts rs1 and simm12 as separate operands, as someone might want to use the S type for a non-store, but no one has asked for that so I'm not worrying about that for now. +@item SB type: .insn sb opcode, func3, rs1, rs2, symbol +@itemx SB type: .insn sb opcode, func3, rs1, rs2, simm12 +@itemx B type: .insn b opcode, func3, rs1, rs2, symbol +@itemx B type: .insn b opcode, func3, rs1, rs1, simm12 The .insn parsing code doesn't allow the simm12 syntax here. Only pc-relative symbols. So these lines should be dropped. You are right about changing the regs from rd/rs1 to rs1/rs2. There is a typo on the last line with two rs1s, but that line needs to be dropped anyways. Since we are modifying this, I think we should promote B to @item and demote SB to @itemx, as B is the current name and SB is the old name for this insn format. Similarly we should promote J and demote UJ. This patch is small enough and obvious enough that I believe we can accept it without a copyright assignment. In general, if you want to contribute to GNU packages, you need to go through the copyright assignment paperwork. Otherwise, it is better to describe the change you want rather than send a patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.