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: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>> On 01.07.16 at 16:24, <> wrote:
>> Referring again to the above document, it says about movsb/movsw:
>> "movsb is not movsb{wlq}" and "movsw
>> is not movsw{lq}" (on p. 37). Those are the only mnemonics that are
>> singled out in this way.
> Well, the document referenced is a random one; it's way too new
> to be a canonical reference.
>> So in the end, I guess the movzb/movzw change is fine, but this one is
>> not. It's in inherent inconsistency related to the ability of leaving
>> away the size suffixes in combination with the chosen mnemonics, it
>> seems.
> I do not understand what inconsistency you refer to here. The
> only inconsistency I can see is that one can't omit the suffixes
> from these three instructions, unlike any others with GPR
> operands.

This mnemonic inconsistency comes from ISA and AT&T syntax.
But there are no issues now.  Why create new ones?


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