RFC: Formalization of the Intel assembly syntax (PR53929)
LIU Hao
lh_mouse@126.com
Sat Jan 20 12:32:17 GMT 2024
在 2024-01-19 16:19, Fangrui Song 写道:
> It is also unfortunate that whether the displacement is an immediate
> or not change the behavior of brackets.
>
> mov eax, DWORD PTR 0 # mov $0x0,%eax
> mov eax, DWORD PTR [0] # mov 0x0,%eax
> mov eax, DWORD PTR sym # mov 0x0,%eax with relocation
> mov eax, DWORD PTR [sym] # mov 0x0,%eax with relocation
>
> The above reveals yet another inconsistency. For a memory reference,
> it seems that we should use [] but [sym] could be ambiguous if sym
> matches a register name or operator name.
This is sort of tautology, as `DWORD PTR` and `[]` means the same thing. It's unfortunate that
neither could replace the other; not to mention the `DWORD BCST` thing in AVX512.
That is to say, these two
mov eax, DWORD PTR 0
mov eax, DWORD PTR [0]
should denote the same operation. This is more useful with a segment override, to access
thread-local data, as in
mov rax, QWORD PTR 0 # 48 8B0425 00000000
mov rax, QWORD PTR gs:0 # 65 48 8B0425 00000000
> Does the proposal change the placement of the displacement depending
> on whether it is an immediate?
> This is inconsistent, but perhaps there is not much we can improve...
The proposal is about elimination of ambiguity. Roughly speaking, an identifier that follows `PTR`,
`BCST` or `OFFSET` is to be interpreted as a symbol, and an identifier that appears with in a pair
of brackets is to be interpreted as a register.
As a numeric displacement does not cause ambiguity, it can be accepted either way.
--
Best regards,
LIU Hao
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20240120/526de72d/attachment.sig>
More information about the Binutils
mailing list