This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: remove stray instruction attributes
- 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 06:44:03 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove stray instruction attributes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <57750F2A02000078000FA05C at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <577517B102000078000FA09D at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOqhLSJkgY=BZUARGLO+hKEWxtEa+MFpWN4vy3NWbE1+cQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5775217102000078000FA0F0 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOrQq191jfv4gjN6gy731A6wNSt1ykNiLD5hWPbZ_zsnmg at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 30.06.16 at 14:29, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:31, <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 12:23, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> - with Cpu64 Disp16 makes no sense for memory operands
>>>>> - with CpuNo64 Disp32S makes no sense
>>>>> - non-64-bit lgdt doesn't allow 10-byte operands
>>>> Another thing I've been thinking of, which I believe would greatly
>>>> improve readability of opcodes/i386-opc.tbl, is to remove the
>>>> various No_*Suf specifications when an instruction doesn't allow
>>>> any suffix: Since no instruction will possibly allow for every one of
>>>> them, i386-gen could easily be made set all 6 bits when none of
>>>> them got set by parsing of the input. Thoughts?
>>> I don't mind replacing all those No_*Suf with something close
>>> to what spec says.
>> I don't understand: I was proposing to remove them where they're
>> pointless (and can be inferred); I don't see how what the spec says
>> comes into the picture here (namely I didn't mean to effect any
>> behavioral change).
> No_*Suf is something we made up. It isn't clear which instructions
> should have it from spec. Can we replace it with something from spec?
Do you know of a formal specification of AT&T syntax? Intel syntax
really uses only very few suffixes.
But again - my point was merely cleanup, yet you continue to ask for
more. Am I to take that to mean that the cleanup alone isn't worth it?