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 17:23, <> wrote:
> 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.

So since I see that rational arguments won't lead anywhere here
- would you at least allow in the fix for the bug that this change
uncovered (the one hunk changing tc-i386.c), even if that also
doesn't seem to cause any issues right now?


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