Home Original page

[PATCH 3/4] x86: fold RegXMM/RegYMM/RegZMM into RegSIMD

H.J. Lu hjl.tools@gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 16:28:00 GMT 2017 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 12/15/17 1:50 PM >>>
>>On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -5930,20 +5958,6 @@ finalize_imm (void)
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  static int
>>> -bad_implicit_operand (int xmm)
>>> -{
>>> -  const char *ireg = xmm ? "xmm0" : "ymm0";
>>> -
>>> -  if (intel_syntax)
>>> -    as_bad (_("the last operand of `%s' must be `%s%s'"),
>>> -           i.tm.name, register_prefix, ireg);
>>> -  else
>>> -    as_bad (_("the first operand of `%s' must be `%s%s'"),
>>> -           i.tm.name, register_prefix, ireg);
>>> -  return 0;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>
>>Will we miss the assembly operand error checking?
>
> Not sure I understand what you mean. As the altered test case shows, error
> messages are still present, just that they don't mention %xmm0 anymore. If
> you mean something else, please explain. But keep in mind that things are
> now more similar to GPR accumulator (i.e. %al etc) or FPU (%st(0)) handling,
> where there is no such problem either. The template now requires %xmm0 to
> be used.

It is hard to tell what the error message is from

*:[0-9]*: Error: .*blendvpd.*

We used to get

The last operand of ....

What do we get now instead?

-- 
H.J.
More information about the Binutils mailing list