[PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic
Jan Beulich
jbeulich@suse.com
Thu Nov 14 07:22:00 GMT 2019
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Thu Nov 14 07:22:00 GMT 2019
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 13.11.2019 22:10, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:21 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 12.11.2019 21:43, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:16 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.11.2019 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >>>>>> On the positive side this fixes MOVDIRI handling: Previously only >>>>>> the operand-size less cases below would have been accepted, whereas >>>>>> now all 6 valid ones remain without diagnostic. >>>> >>>> (Leaving this in context for the question below.) >>>> >>>>>> Btw, would you mind me putting in the testsuite parts of the >>>>>> alternative patches I had sent for this PR? >>>> >>>> [You didn't reply to this at all.] >>> >>> Sure, please submit a patch. >> >> Well, I did submit a pair of them already, and my question is if I >> may put them in with the tc-i386.c change dropped. > > Please submit a new one without the tc-i386.c change. Done. > If it only updates Intel syntax tests, it is pre-approved. I realize that strictly speaking I wouldn't have needed approval here, and hence should simply have gone ahead anyway. >>>>>> movdiri [rcx], eax >>>>>> movdiri dword ptr [rcx], eax >>>>>> movdiri qword ptr [rcx], eax >>>>>> >>>>>> movdiri [rcx], rax >>>>>> movdiri dword ptr [rcx], rax >>>>>> movdiri qword ptr [rcx], rax >>>>>> >>>>>> .code32 >>>>>> movdiri [ecx], eax >>>>>> movdiri dword ptr [ecx], eax >>>>>> movdiri qword ptr [ecx], eax >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you submit a patch? >>>> >>>> A patch to do what? Extend existing testcases? Shouldn't this >>>> once again have been the job of the person adding support for >>>> the insn? >>> >>> I'd like to avoid touching Intel syntax. >> >> So what are the answers to the first two questions then? >> > > What are the questions again? You asked "Can you submit a patch?" which I responded to asking "A patch to do what?" Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list