Add the l.lw assembly mnemonic, which encodes as a l.lwz instruction.

The l.lwz definition page in the spec should have:

Format: l.lwz rD,I(rA)


l.lw rD,I(rA)


Jeremy Bennett 11:32, 16 May 2012 (CEST)

The downside of this is that it is potentially confusing in a 64-bit implementation, where you want to be explicit about sign extension. If we do go down this route, then for consistency, we should also have l.lh and as synonyms for l.lhz and l.lbz.

rdiez Sat Oct 6 16:43:25 2012

For the 32-bit architecture, in order to reduce confusion it would be best to remove the l.lws opcode, and remove the l.lws and l.lwz mnemonics, then add an “l.lw” mnemonic which maps to the old l.lwz opcode. or1200 hasn’t implemented (or didn’t implement) the l.lws opcode for a long time anyway. By the way, l.extws and l.extwz should also be marked as obsolete, as l.ori can achieve the same results. For the 64-bit architecture, l.lw shouldn’t be a valid mnemonic, so the programmer must think whether he wants the l.lwz or the l.lws behaviour.