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: mov{s,z}{b,w,l} suffix guessing

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>> On 28.06.16 at 16:44, <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>> H.J.,
>>> i386-opc.tbl has "interesting" comments around these, and the
>>> assembler as a result provides inconsistent behavior: For one
>>> because of the recognition of the suffix-less movzb (as the
>>> only exception). And of course with both instruction groups
>>> therefore being different from all other instructions with
>>> register operands. So the question is: Are these inconsistencies
>>> really intended, or wouldn't it be better to enhance things so
>>> that at least the final suffix bytes on these two groups won't
>>> be required anymore? (Clearly when both operands are
>>> registers, one could even aim at making the second from last
>>> suffix byte optional too.)
>>> And if the current (sorry) state is intentional, shouldn't use of
>>> suffix-less movzb at least get warned about, to pave a road
>>> towards removing that exception?
>> Please open a bug with all these issues you found.  We should
>> investigate them.  If changing them doesn't introduce any test
>> failures and gcc/glibc/kernel have no issues, we should fix it.
> Well, I'm hesitant to do such bureaucracy. I would do it if you
> indicated to preferred direction would be to remove movzb. If
> however you would, just like I do, prefer to add the missing
> ones, then I'd much rather look into adding them instead of
> writing a bugzilla entry.

You need to send them to somewhere anyway.  Please put them
in bugzilla instead of here.



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