This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:47:41 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5775139D02000078000FA084 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOqBeUwoexD_7kXJocucRZbA96u+B1pC-fbq4Q55zNVF-g at mail dot gmail dot com> <57751FAF02000078000FA0D3 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOo4-74EPeJyR7StX-=WZCrhay_FORCVqn+yRVWrbum1kQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:38, <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:26, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> --- 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d 1970-01-01
> 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
>>>> +++ 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d 2016-06-30
> 12:04:26.000000000 +0200
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>>> +#objdump: -d
>>>> +#source: movz.s
>>>> +#name: x86 mov with zero-extend (32-bit object)
>>>> +.*: +file format .*
>>>> +Disassembly of section .text:
>>>> +0+ <movz>:
>>>> +[ ]*[a-f0-9]+: 66 0f b6 c0 * movzbw? %al,%ax
>>> What is `?' for?
>> Now that we accept the suffix-less mnemonic I don't think it would
>> be appropriate to demand the suffix to be issues by the disassembler
>> (unless in suffix-always mode, which isn't the case here).
> Assembler output is controlled by "#objdump: -d". Under what condition
> will `?' be needed?
This is to prevent having to touch this again when making the
disassembler obey the absence of -Msuffix here. I'm of the
opinion that test cases should check for valid output, not for what
the tools currently produce.
> Also please use "#objdump: -dw" so that there is
> always one line for each insn.
Easily done, though meaningless here afaict. Do I need to re-submit
with that adjustment?