This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Remove memory check on SVME instructions
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich at novell dot com>
- Cc: christophe dot harle at amd dot com, dwarak dot rajagopal at amd dot com, michael dot meissner at amd dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:27:55 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Remove memory check on SVME instructions
- References: <46DE4DBF020000780003C5BC@public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 06:33:35AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 09/05/07 12:48 AM >>>
> >On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:27:09PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 09/04/07 4:08 PM >>>
> >> >On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:19:02PM -0500, rajagopal, dwarak wrote:
> >> >> H.J.,
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, SVM instructions have register only operand. So please fix this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Dwarak
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I am checking this patch to remove memory check on SVME instructions.
> >>
> >> Why? Did you check that you get proper warnings/errors for invalid operand
> >> specifications after you removed these checks?
> >>
> >
> >SVME instructions don't take any memory operand. You will get an
> >error if you try to use an memory operand.
>
> They really do, just the addressing is so that only rAX can be used. If you check
> the svme test case, you'll see that there are explict uses of memory operands. In
> the original patch implementation it may not have been that way, but since the
> meaning of the operands is memory-like, we agreed on a memory-like notation
> iirc.
It is wrong and has been fixed.
H.J.