This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:04:28 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5775139D02000078000FA084 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOqBeUwoexD_7kXJocucRZbA96u+B1pC-fbq4Q55zNVF-g at mail dot gmail dot com> <57751FAF02000078000FA0D3 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOo4-74EPeJyR7StX-=WZCrhay_FORCVqn+yRVWrbum1kQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <577522FD02000078000FA10D at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:38, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:26, <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> --- 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d 1970-01-01
>> 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
>>>>> +++ 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d 2016-06-30
>> 12:04:26.000000000 +0200
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>>>> +#objdump: -d
>>>>> +#source: movz.s
>>>>> +#name: x86 mov with zero-extend (32-bit object)
>>>>> +.*: +file format .*
>>>>> +Disassembly of section .text:
>>>>> +0+ <movz>:
>>>>> +[ ]*[a-f0-9]+: 66 0f b6 c0 * movzbw? %al,%ax
>>>> What is `?' for?
>>> Now that we accept the suffix-less mnemonic I don't think it would
>>> be appropriate to demand the suffix to be issues by the disassembler
>>> (unless in suffix-always mode, which isn't the case here).
>> Assembler output is controlled by "#objdump: -d". Under what condition
>> will `?' be needed?
> This is to prevent having to touch this again when making the
> disassembler obey the absence of -Msuffix here. I'm of the
> opinion that test cases should check for valid output, not for what
> the tools currently produce.
objdump is the part of binutils. I'd like to know if its behavior changes
by accident. Please drop ?.
>> Also please use "#objdump: -dw" so that there is
>> always one line for each insn.
> Easily done, though meaningless here afaict. Do I need to re-submit
> with that adjustment?
OK with "objdump -dw" and without ?