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

Jan Beulich wrote on Fri, 01 Jul 2016:

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.

I disagree that (originally) Sun documentation is a random reference in the context of AT&T/System V UNIX. Yes, SVR4.2 i386 documentation would be even better (if it mentions this issue), but I guess that only exists as hard copy in someone's basement.

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

It is not consistent that all base mnemonics (i.e., without size suffix) refer to individual opcodes (or groups of opcodes) as defined in Intel's architecture manuals, except for movsb/w/l.


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