This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Patch: x86_64 disassembler support
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Subject: Re: Patch: x86_64 disassembler support
- From: Alan Modra <alan at linuxcare dot com dot au>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:24:23 +1100 (EST)
- cc: patches at x86-64 dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> (dis386_att): Change templates of instruction implicitly promoted
> to 64bit; change e?? to RMe?? for unwind RM byte instructions.
> (grps): Likewise.
> (dis386_intel): Likewise.
Why the above changes when you have a new table for x86_64? Seems to me
like an unnecessary change, perhaps from when you were attempting to
implement without a separate table?
The diff would be a little clearer and easier to review if you moved the
x86_64 tables after the existing tables too. I generally prefer diff -u,
but that's just a personal preference.
> + /* REX prefixes familly. */
family
> + info->fprintf_func (info->stream, " # ");
(*info->fprintf_func) for K&R
> case d_mode:
> oappend("QWORD PTR ");
> break;
> + case m_mode:
> + if (mode_64bit)
> + oappend("DWORD PTR ");
Please fix existing bad formatting here rather than following it.
> ! unsigned int a=0;
> ! unsigned int b=0;
spaces around `='
> ! x=a+((bfd_vma)b<<32);
formatting here too
> ! x = *codep++ & (bfd_signed_vma)0xff;
space after `)' Check other places in patch too.
> ! /* FIXME: This expects that sizeof(int) == 4! */
> ! x = (int)x;
please cure this.
Alan
--
Linuxcare. Support for the Revolution.