From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29375 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2003 16:09:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29211 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2003 16:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Oct 2003 16:09:22 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77702B89; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:09:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FA2892B.1040102@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joern Rennecke Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: add fsrra and fsca instructions to SH simulator (resend) References: <200310311540.h9VFe5l08263@linsvr3.uk.superh.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00873.txt.bz2 >> > 2003-10-24 J"orn Rennecke >> > >> > * interp.c (fsca_s, fsrra_s): New functions. >> > * gencode.c (tab): Add entries for fsca and fsrra. >> > (expand_opcode): Allow variable length n / m fields. > >> >> Is it possible for this code to use the far more portable sim-fpu? > > > The entire SH3E / SH4 simulator in sim/sh already uses native floating point, > so making just these two instructions use sim-fpu would be pointless. > > Converting the entire simulator would of course be possible, but I don't > see any pressing need to do this now. We have far more urgent issues > with SH5 support in gcc and gdb that we should address first. Can _just_ these new functions be implemented using sim-fpu? Since the other code effectively pre-dates sim-fpu the fact that it didn't use it is understandable. However, that doesn't excuse _new_ code from using the more robust sim-fpu. You'll note that I carefully avoided suggesting that you should fix any of the old code - that would be unreasonable. Andrew