This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: remove stray instruction attributes
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:41:05 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove stray instruction attributes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <57750F2A02000078000FA05C at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <577517B102000078000FA09D at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOqhLSJkgY=BZUARGLO+hKEWxtEa+MFpWN4vy3NWbE1+cQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:31, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 12:23, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> - with Cpu64 Disp16 makes no sense for memory operands
>>> - with CpuNo64 Disp32S makes no sense
>>> - non-64-bit lgdt doesn't allow 10-byte operands
>>
>> Another thing I've been thinking of, which I believe would greatly
>> improve readability of opcodes/i386-opc.tbl, is to remove the
>> various No_*Suf specifications when an instruction doesn't allow
>> any suffix: Since no instruction will possibly allow for every one of
>> them, i386-gen could easily be made set all 6 bits when none of
>> them got set by parsing of the input. Thoughts?
>
> I don't mind replacing all those No_*Suf with something close
> to what spec says.
I don't understand: I was proposing to remove them where they're
pointless (and can be inferred); I don't see how what the spec says
comes into the picture here (namely I didn't mean to effect any
behavioral change).
Jan