typo:
Indexed Addressing:
ld rd, (ra+rb<<2) instead of ld rd, (ra, rb) ldh rd, (ra+rb<<1)
instead of ldh rd, (ra, rb) ldb rd, (ra+rb) instead of ldb rd, (ra, rb)
...and likewise for st
From: hermanhermitage@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: raspi-internals@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [raspi-internals] Re: VPU mnemonic alignment
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 14:01:43 +1200
I guess we can add a section for historical alternatives.With Julian Brown
tapping away at GCC et al, I guess what gets implemented there will ultimately
be what matters :-)
The other changes Julian pointed out (with reference to the brcm driver source).
Instruction predication: mov.ne r0, r1 instead of movne r0, r1 eor.mi
r0, r1, r2 instead of eormi r0, r1, r2 etc however b<cc>, and
addcmpb<cc> retain the syntax without the dot.
Displacement Addressing: ld rd, (ra+disp) instead of ld rd, disp(ra) st rd,
(ra+disp) instead of st rd, disp(ra)
Indexed Addressing:
ld rd, (ra+rb<<4) instead of ld rd, (ra, rb) ldh rd, (ra+rb<<2)
instead of ldh rd, (ra, rb) ldb rd, (ra+rb) instead of ldb rd, (ra, rb)
...and likewise for st
Finally with no sign of 'lea' in the source, it may be better to replace it
with add. > Subject: [raspi-internals] Re: VPU mnemonic alignment
To: raspi-internals@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: dg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:18:23 +0200
On 26/05/16 01:51, Herman Hermitage wrote:
Correction:
pop: (rename)
ldm rb-rm, [*pc*,] (sp++)
push: (rename)
stm rb-rm, [*lr*,] (--sp)
Does this mean that the push and pop instructions are being deprecated?
(Because they're way more convenient than the ldm/stm forms.)
--
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│ "There is nothing in the world so dangerous --- and I mean *nothing*
│ --- as a children's story that happens to be true." --- Master Li Kao,
│ _The Bridge of Birds_
