This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}

>>> On 05.05.15 at 18:10, <> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>>> On 23.04.15 at 15:17, <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23.04.15 at 14:39, <> wrote:
>>>>> It is not OK.
>>>> ... I guess as the Intel syntax maintainer I could decide to ignore
>>>> this.
>>> MASM AVX512 compatibility isn't our goal.  Compatible with NASM is
>>> a good ideal.  Peter, Kirill, let's work it out.
>>> Adding Peter for NASM and Kirill for GAS.
>> Not having seen any response from them at all, I think applying
>> at least the assembler side (which leaves the current bogus
>> operand order available) should really not be controversial. As
>> to the disassembler side, I continue to think that Intel syntax
>> disassembly should preferably match the Intel manual, especially
>> when there is no other implementation to use as reference.
>> Thoughts?
> Since there is no MASM AVX512 compatibility to speak of,
> please don't apply those patches

Please don't just repeat yourself, but give a reason I can understand
to override the intention to conform with the Intel manual. I'm
certainly hesitant to commit changes that can't be agreed upon, but
as said before I don't feel tied to your disapproval of the changes.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]