On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 03:12:03PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am 19.11.21 um 12:09 schrieb Heiko Carstens: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:57:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > > - " mvcl %%r1,%%r1\n" > > > > > > > + " .insn e,0x0e11\n" /* mvcl %%r1,%%r1" */ > > > > > > > > Sorry, I disagree with this. As you said above rr would be the correct > > > > format for this instruction. If we go for the e format then we should > > > > also use an instruction with e format. > > > > Which in this case would simply be an illegal opcode, which would be > > > > sufficient for what this code is good for: ".insn e,0x0000". > > > > > > Why not simply use .short then? > > > > .short bypasses all sanity checks while .insn does not, so I think > > that should be preferred. But I don't care too much. > > Heiko, > I am fine with ".insn e,0x0000" and the a changed comment that > changes "specification exception" to "operation exception". Do you > want Ilie to resend or simply fixup? I'll simply change it. Let's don't spend more time on this.
