This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Behaviour of i386 add instruction changes based on operand
>I understand the concern about changing AT&T mode. Still, I think the
>current situation, in which add constant to memory becomes addl for a
>signed 8-bit value and generates an error for any other value, can not
>be considered to be correct.
>
>Does anybody think that we should not change
> add $1, 0(%edx)
>to generate a "can't size instruction" error?
No, I completely agree here. But I know there's code out there (Linux
Xen) that will no longer assemble then. Hence I'd want to propose to
make this a warning as a first step, and an error one or two releases
later.
>As far as I can gcc will always generate a size suffix in AT&T mode.
Yes, and I'd actually also would want to see a stricter assembly mode
where suffixes are *always* required (unless insns support none of
course).
Jan