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 01.07.16 at 17:12, <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>>> On 01.07.16 at 16:24, <> wrote:
>>> 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.

There is - as said, I fell into the trap seeing "movzb" in source code
and assuming I then could also use "movzw" or "movsb" (etc). I
can certainly open a bug if that helps you re-consider.

>  Why create new ones?

Where are there new issues being created?


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