This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: ENTER/BOUND operands order.
- From: Michael Zolotukhin <michael dot v dot zolotukhin at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Sławomir Wojtasiak <slawomir dot wojtasiak at swksoftware dot pl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:48:20 +0400
- Subject: Re: ENTER/BOUND operands order.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <3482868a668de8ebe53975eb7d79d725 dot qmail at home dot pl> <b4fcb2a62aa358bc134689ccd33eebcb dot qmail at home dot pl> <52D7A465020000780011423E at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <CANtU078BKxoUiKdmqp8ii0TFvi2T1itzzn7dicQoAbKzdwtRmg at mail dot gmail dot com> <52D807FE02000078001144A2 at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <CANtU07-s=VXv2yCb2FA_Dyco14d5LiC4of7r7zCkNa+4_omFxg at mail dot gmail dot com> <52D80C8402000078001144D5 at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com>
> Is there anything supporting this view of yours?
I will recheck it with the document authors and get back to you.
> That would be very odd: Tests setting language standards. If you
> don't take the Intel manual as sufficient reference, the next best
> thing setting a standard here is MASM. Did you check how they
> require the operands to be ordered?
No, I didn't. I don't think MASM is a reference here either though, as
it is another asm. But I agree that there could me much confusion with
this syntax, and in future it should be either explicitly specified in
the instructions documentation, or in a separate document.