This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] gas/x86-64: properly distinguish low and high register ranges
>>> On 31.07.12 at 17:48, "H.J. Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.07.12 at 18:04, "H.J. Lu" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.07.12 at 16:16, "H.J. Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> Can you add some testcases?
>>>> I knew you would ask this, but sorry, this makes no sense - if test
>>>> cases would are desirable here, they shouldn't be testing just the
>>>> things that this patch fixes, but also any other invalid operand
>>>> combinations. As an example - why would testing that "xlat [r11]"
>>>> isn't accepted be needed, but not e.g. "xlat [ecx]"?
>>>> Furthermore, this fixes actually broken behavior, so accepting
>>>> the change shouldn't be dependent upon test case availability.
>>> What broken behavior does this change fix?
>> I gave an example above - xlat [r11]. Other similar examples
>> involve other string instructions requiring fixed registers as
>> well as the one or two instructions requiring xmm0/ymm0 as
>> their first/last operand.
> Please open a bug report for broken behaviors.
That's bureaucracy that doesn't get us anywhere. I'd really
like to know whether the patch is okay; entering bug reports
is meaningful if one _can't_ fix a problem right away.