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 8:19 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>> 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.

It is unfortunate.  But it won't lead to wrong instructions being used.

>>  Why create new ones?
> Where are there new issues being created?

Possible confusion.


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