Re: [coldfire-gnu-discuss] trapf opcode

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul McConkey wrote:

> So the assembler supports trapf, which is fine, but are you likely to
> support the CF syntax below in future? If so, will you deprecate or
> remove the support for trapf?
>  
> CFPRM rev.3 p 4-83
>  
> Assembler syntax:    TPF      PC + 2 -> PC
>                      TPF.W    PC + 4 -> PC
>                      TPF.L    PC + 6 -> PC

oh joy.  trapf is the cpu32 instruction name, coldfire appears to have selected 
a different name for the same encoding.

We won't remove trapf, but will probably accept 'tpf' as an alternative.

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::         CodeSourcery
nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk