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 Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>> On 21.05.15 at 14:07, <> 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 SDM is NOT an assembler reference manual.  Please stop
making it into one.

>> 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).

It simply means that they don't care.

> 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.

We don't want to introduce new syntax which isn't used by


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