This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Kirill Yukhin" <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>, "Christian Ludloff" <ludloff at google dot com>, "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>,"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:02:45 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <552FE0630200007800072CD0 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOomWLMwQT6R2qLr1p7_dzmwuNLsz2PEk-6tV3NTt_=24Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <55390A6A0200007800075263 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOrSX3cgXCSJFsbDnKgnyNrX-Y4cYO2VL4uTrKV-O3fcCw at mail dot gmail dot com> <554906C70200007800076D28 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOp2bUnsU+Tn4RKLNw48h6JGiaGaX1ddqpGhyM3tsF7pTg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5549E2820200007800076F5F at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <555D9794020000780007C89A at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOoe8s+3iPvpbhF2p=c96zyvYijQ9eqs+4Gx5biF1E80OA at mail dot gmail dot com> <555DDF7B020000780007CB72 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOrxdYQUSbwX9Vw-5TCcPsa+BYKgn9S740NeOAqMKKKr6A at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 21.05.15 at 14:07, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> I checked with our SDM people and was told that
>
> ---
> Intel Software Developer Manual only governs the output side of the binary
> form of instruction byte stream matches what HW expect. Each assembly
> tool product has its own implementation of transforming the input
> language/dialect into the output stream.
> ---
Of course. But I don't think you're going to deny that what it (or
really its ancient predecessors) specified has been taken by
assembler implementations as reference.
> Intel syntax supported by GNU assembler is what is implemented
> in GNU assembler. Given that there is nothing we can be compatible
> with, we don't want to change it.
I clearly disagree to this last statement, and I think you saying so
contradicts you having pulled in people maintaining other assemblers
apparently in the hope that they would support your position (which
they didn't, at least not publicly, i.e. not visible to me).
Furthermore you once again ignore the fact that the assembler
after my proposed changes isn't going to reject the previously
supported format, it merely _also_ supports the SDM specified
variant. Hence I don't see the change breaking anything, and I
continue having a hard time understanding your position in the
first place.
Jan
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}