In the last mail Richard Atterer said:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Russell King - ARM Linux Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The ARM2 data book says:
> >
> > 'In the case of post-indexed addressing, the write back bit is
> > redundant, since the old base value can be retained by setting the
> > offset to zero.'
> >
> > Hence, when specifing an offset of zero, since no writeback is
> > performed, the result is predictable. However, the question now is,
> > does this apply to the later processors? Have ARM updated their ARM
> > to include this? Did they purposely remove this? Or what?
>
> I don't read the above quote as
>
> "if the offset is 0, no writeback is performed",
>
> rather as
>
> "since 0 is added, it's as if no writeback had taken place".
Hmm. True.
The bit in '' is ambiguous. I'm inclined to agree with Russell, but I'd like to
see the text before it.
> Of course, interpretation may vary between processors. ;-) BTW, the RISC
> OS Appendix on ARM assembler also says:
>
> "A post-indexed LDR|STR where Rm=Rn must not be used (this instruction
> is very difficult for the abort handler to unwind when late aborts are
> configured - which do not prevent base writeback)."
>
> IMHO egcs really ought to produce 'ldrbt r6,[r6,#0]' instead of
> 'ldrbt r6,[r6],#0'.
Aah, you missed the point of my very brain-dead previous message (which
enumerated the 4 possible states with 2 bits) - you can only do T with
post-indexed addressing.
Nick
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
