This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] PR gas/16488: Add test for incorrect memory operand for gather/scatter instructions.
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "Michael Zolotukhin" <michael dot v dot zolotukhin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:58:43 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR gas/16488: Add test for incorrect memory operand for gather/scatter instructions.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140131100941 dot GA24910 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAMe9rOrQToFnaazvWCfoyXhEdfOS=F-r=qfHYp57ivTGjjALGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CANtU079oJ6oPsQkjn7i4YWuXTcALVYe_WKvDYyMouXePbMOsQw at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 31.01.14 at 15:38, Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You added 2 tests for AT&T syntax, but only 1 for
>> Intel syntax. Any particular reason for this?
> Yes, the following test doesn't give an error:
> vgatherqpd zmm6{k1}, ZMMWORD PTR [zmm3]
> I think it's because it is equivalent to something like vgatherqpd
> (,%zmm2,),%zmm6{%k1} (please note commas around zmm2), which also
> doesn't lead to an error. I assume that in Intel syntax this test is
> regarded as a rich addressing mode, which is acceptable for
> gather/scatters. However, I'm not sure about this - please correct me
> if I'm wrong.
That's correct - the order of registers in a memory address can
get swapped if that results in a valid address.
Jan