On 11 February 2014 11:36, Victor Kamensky victor.kamensky@linaro.org wrote:
On 11 February 2014 09:58, Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pitre@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Dave Martin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:09:35PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Dave Martin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:30:01PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Victor Kamensky wrote:
> Renames logical shift macros, 'push' and 'pull', defined in > arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h, into 'lspush' and 'lspull'.
I don't have any fundamental objection to the idea, except maybe for the actual names. I just can't come up with anything better though.
For consistency with the get_byte_ stuff, how about:
push -> towards_byte_0 pull -> from_byte_0
That may make the purpose a little clearer, too.
I don't know if
mov r0, r1, from_byte_0 #8is that much clearer though.
(Assuming I've got them the right way around...)
As you later noticed you got it wrong. :-) Most likely because "full from" and "push towards" are common english constructs.
No more so than "pull towards" and "push from".
OK. I'll trust you on that account.
I'll blame it on the fact that the get_byte_ macros have wrong- endian numbering, which I didn't look at carefully enough ;)
But I think we proved that my suggestion didn't really make things easier to understand...
What about:
push -> next pull -> prev?
That would make:
mov r0, r1, next #8I am not native English speaker, so subtle details of your discussion go above my head :). For me those tokens were just symbols with specific meaning of logical shifts and selected endianness. I'll do as you decide. Quick grep over .S files under arch/arm seems 'next' and 'prev' will be OK and I did build that confirms that.
Forgot to mention one detail. There is a case in ./nwfpe/entry.S file where 'next' is used as label name. I guess, it should work if macro would rename it into lsl or lsr label name. And/or we could rename the label.
Wondering ... whether idea to have those macros name in way that coincides with English words would lead us to some conflict earlier or latter. With this respect lspull and lspush IMHO are somewhat better because they are sort of abbreviations.
Thanks, Victor
One nit/question though: there are some cases where 'push' and 'pull' macros were used in macros and macro parameters were also called 'push' and 'pull'. I.e something like this:
mov r3, lr, pull #\pull
with rename 'pull' to 'lspull' I did not bother to rename macro parameters because they are separate, have just local context and 'lspull' is close to 'pull'. Resulting proposed diff was:
mov r3, lr, pull #\pull
mov r3, lr, lspull #\pullI assume that if we change 'push -> next' and 'pull -> prev' I will need to rename macro parameters in the same way. So it will be:
mov r3, lr, prev #\prevIs it correct?
Thanks, Victor
Nicolas