Re: [PATCH] ppc32 use simplified mmenonics

[Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>]

On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 10:45, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 06:41:32AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:

> > This is a slightly better example, but still, it's
> > lots easier to look up "bc" to see the selection of
> > options that are available.
> > 
> > Plus, yeah, "what the hell is 4,2", but those numbers
> > replace a _lot_ of other things you'd need to remember.
> > There are 456 of these "simplified" branch instructions.
> > If you use those, you'll tend to restrict your code to
> > those few common ones you remember. There's bdnzltrl,
> > bdnzfla, bunla...  That's madness.
> 
> So you writing assembly ppc code with your book on your side ?
> because I don't see any reason to associate easily '4,2' with 'not equal'

As I said, it's a slightly better example.
(it's also NOT what the patch was changing)

> bdnzltrl kinds of mmenonics are actually not fair, they are not really used :).
> But even that I would prefer bdnztlrl which I would have to lookup,
> than bclr with cryptics numbers which I would had to lookup too.

See, that's a problem. You're limiting yourself to
just 96 of the 456 listed operations, which are only
1/5 of the 2304 available operations.

I do admit to using bne at times. The bit manipulation
stuff is different though. It's not so cryptic in the
raw form. The same goes for using "or" to copy a register.

If you don't use the full bit manipulation notation
all the time, you might forget what it can do. Then
you'll end up using 2 instructions where one would do.

> > That's 114 opcodes to 1.
> 
> There's not 1 opcode for conditional branching. There are more on ppc basis:
> 	
> 	bc, bca, bclr, bcctr, bcl, bcla, bclrl, bcctrl

OK, that's 8. Dividing 456 by that, I still see a 57:1 ratio.

There's also that matter of the 1848 operations you can't
access via the "simplified" instruction names.