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 21.05.15 at 12:42, <> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>>> On 06.05.15 at 09:44, <> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I guess I'll take two weeks of silence as silent withdrawal of the
>> objection to the patches then.
> Please don't change it. As I said before, we have discussed it at Intel
> and we don't think the change is appropriate.

So are you planning to change the SDM? Else I don't see what new
aspect you are trying to tell me. I'm hesitant to commit the changes
without your consent, but getting back silence or all the same
vague arguments I'm afraid all I can do is give you a little more
time (say a week; if you need more, please give a clear time line) to
come forward with something substantial.

(Also please recall me having stated before that the AT&T operand
ordering has got completely screwed up over its apparent original
intentions with all the more-than-two operand instructions that got
added over the last so many years. This brokenness should _not_
impact Intel syntax mode.)


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