Jan Beulich jbeulich@suse.com
Wed May 9 12:34:00 GMT 2018

• Previous message (by thread): [PATCH, committed] x86: Replace AddrPrefixOp0 with AddrPrefixOpReg
• Next message (by thread): [PATCH, committed] x86: Replace AddrPrefixOp0 with AddrPrefixOpReg
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 05/09/18 1:58 PM >>>
>On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> 05/07/18 7:01 PM >>>
>>>--- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>>+++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>>@@ -5997,14 +5997,18 @@ process_suffix (void)
>>>/* Now select between word & dword operations via the operand
>>>size prefix, except for instructions that will ignore this
>>>prefix anyway.  */
>>>-      if (i.tm.opcode_modifier.addrprefixop0)
>>>+      if (i.reg_operands > 0
>>>+        && i.types[0].bitfield.reg
>>>+        && i.tm.opcode_modifier.addrprefixopreg
>>>+        && (i.tm.opcode_modifier.immext
>>>+            || i.operands == 1))
>>
>> What is this comparison against 1 for? All the single operand SVM insns
>> have ImmExt set.
>
>It is for cpumovdir64b which has 2 operands and doesn't use 0x66 prefix.

That makes it even less clear to me - why " || i.operands == 1" when we talk
about a 2-operand insn here?

Jan

---

• Previous message (by thread): [PATCH, committed] x86: Replace AddrPrefixOp0 with AddrPrefixOpReg
• Next message (by thread): [PATCH, committed] x86: Replace AddrPrefixOp0 with AddrPrefixOpReg
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Binutils mailing list