Spec/implementation harmony.
I did two things here: (1) made the lettering for formats 35c and 35ms
match how things are actually implemented; and (2) formally defined
formats 35mi and 3rmi, to correspond to the inline linked formats
actually used in our current implementation.
In neither case does this change the meaning of the spec in any
substantive way. The first case is just about labels, and the second
case is just about (from the standpoint of the spec) a suggestion.
Change-Id: I6a6226a8cdd82ae4dcc43d342a9e9b98582cefd7
diff --git a/docs/instruction-formats.html b/docs/instruction-formats.html
index 5db2dfd..abf0d80 100644
--- a/docs/instruction-formats.html
+++ b/docs/instruction-formats.html
@@ -56,7 +56,10 @@
and additionally contains a branch target.</p>
<p>Suggested static linking formats have an additional "<code>s</code>" suffix,
-making them four characters total.</p>
+making them four characters total. Similarly, suggested "inline" linking
+formats have an additional "<code>i</code>" suffix. (In this context, inline
+linking is like static linking, except with more direct ties into a
+virtual machine's implementation.)</p>
<p>The full list of typecode letters are as follows. Note that some
forms have different sizes, depending on the format:</p>
@@ -326,45 +329,70 @@
<td>const-string/jumbo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
- <td rowspan="2">B|A|<i>op</i> CCCC G|F|E|D</td>
+ <td rowspan="3">A|G|<i>op</i> BBBB F|E|D|C</td>
<td>35c</td>
- <td><i>[<code>B=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF, vG, vA},
- meth@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF, vG, vA},
- type@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=4</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF, vG},
- <i><code>kind</code></i>@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=3</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF},
- <i><code>kind</code></i>@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=2</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE},
- <i><code>kind</code></i>@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=1</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD},
- <i><code>kind</code></i>@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=0</code>] <code>op</code></i> {},
- <i><code>kind</code></i>@CCCC
+ <td><i>[<code>A=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF, vG},
+ meth@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF, vG},
+ type@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=4</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF},
+ <i><code>kind</code></i>@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=3</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE},
+ <i><code>kind</code></i>@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=2</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD},
+ <i><code>kind</code></i>@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=1</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC},
+ <i><code>kind</code></i>@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=0</code>] <code>op</code></i> {},
+ <i><code>kind</code></i>@BBBB<br/>
+ <p><i>The unusual choice in lettering here reflects a desire to make
+ the count and the reference index have the same label as in format
+ 3rc.</i></p>
</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>35ms</td>
-
- <td><i>[<code>B=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF, vG, vA},
- vtaboff@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=4</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF, vG},
- vtaboff@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=3</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE, vF},
- vtaboff@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=2</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD, vE},
- vtaboff@CCCC<br/>
- <i>[<code>B=1</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vD},
- vtaboff@CCCC<br/>
+ <td><i>[<code>A=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF, vG},
+ vtaboff@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=4</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF},
+ vtaboff@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=3</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE},
+ vtaboff@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=2</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD},
+ vtaboff@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=1</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC},
+ vtaboff@BBBB<br/>
+ <p><i>The unusual choice in lettering here reflects a desire to make
+ the count and the reference index have the same label as in format
+ 3rms.</i></p>
</td>
<td><i>suggested format for statically linked <code>invoke-virtual</code>
and <code>invoke-super</code> instructions of format 35c</i>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
- <td rowspan="2">AA|<i>op</i> BBBB CCCC</td>
+ <td>35mi</td>
+ <td><i>[<code>A=5</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF, vG},
+ inline@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=4</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE, vF},
+ inline@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=3</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD, vE},
+ inline@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=2</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC, vD},
+ inline@BBBB<br/>
+ <i>[<code>A=1</code>] <code>op</code></i> {vC},
+ inline@BBBB<br/>
+ <p><i>The unusual choice in lettering here reflects a desire to make
+ the count and the reference index have the same label as in format
+ 3rmi.</i></p>
+ </td>
+ <td><i>suggested format for inline linked <code>invoke-static</code>
+ and <code>invoke-virtual</code> instructions of format 35c</i>
+ </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td rowspan="3">AA|<i>op</i> BBBB CCCC</td>
<td>3rc</td>
<td><i><code>op</code></i> {vCCCC .. vNNNN}, meth@BBBB<br/>
<i><code>op</code></i> {vCCCC .. vNNNN}, type@BBBB<br/>
@@ -386,6 +414,17 @@
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
+ <td>3rmi</td>
+ <td><i><code>op</code></i> {vCCCC .. vNNNN}, inline@BBBB<br/>
+ <p><i>where <code>NNNN = CCCC+AA-1</code>, that is <code>A</code>
+ determines the count <code>0..255</code>, and <code>C</code>
+ determines the first register</i></p>
+ </td>
+ <td><i>suggested format for inline linked <code>invoke-static</code>
+ and <code>invoke-virtual</code> instructions of format 3rc</i>
+ </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
<td>AA|<i>op</i> BBBB<sub>lo</sub> BBBB BBBB BBBB<sub>hi</sub></td>
<td>51l</td>
<td><i><code>op</code></i> vAA, #+BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB</td>
