Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site leadsv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!trimble
From: trimble@leadsv.UUCP (Gary Trimble)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: CoProcessor Assembler Notation
Message-ID: <779@leadsv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 17:52:29 EST
Article-I.D.: leadsv.779
Posted: Thu Jan 23 17:52:29 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 04:00:44 EST
Organization: LMSC-LEADS, Sunnyvale, Ca.
Lines: 26
Keywords: 68020, 68881, Assemblers, syntax, notation

>>line-eater, line-eater, where fore art thou?<<

We have an interesting quandry involving assembler notation and
the use of coprocessors.

The Motorola documentation is obscure as to how an assembler should
react (actually format coprocessor-id) when multiple coprocessors of
the same type exist in the system.

Example: a motorola 68020 talking to a bank of 3 MC68881 arithmetic
coprocessors. 
	

;From the Motorola 68881 Floating Point Co-Processor User's Manual
;
	FSQRT.X	FPm,FPn	;square root register m, product in n.

This should use the default coprocessor id of 1, but I want to
do it on an '881 set for address 2!

Do I really need a pseudo-op to specify to the assembler which id
field will be filled in? How are some of the assembler writers
attacking this notation? Do we really need meta-notation for
coprocessor assemblers? Post or mail would be apprerciated.

			trimble@leadsv