This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: PR gas/5534: "XXX PTR" isn't checked properlyinIntelsyntax
>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 14.01.08 14:55 >>>
>On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:59:29AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >Unspecified means size can be unspecified. AnySize means any size
>> >is ok.
>>
>> But you continue to have Unspecified in places where a size specification
>> is a requirement (at least in Intel syntax; I never got any clarification on
>> whether AT&T syntax silently enforcing a certain size if none was
>> specified is really intended behavior).
>>
>
>As you mentioned above, since for some instructions, the old assembler
>selected a default size even in Intel mode when size isn't provided, I
I don't think I said anything like that. Quite a while back, I made ambiguous
operand sizes an error in Intel mode, and I'm not aware that I missed any
cases.
>used Unspecified on them. Otherwise, the new assembler will be
>incompatible with the old one. I will enforce the operand size on
I think it should (in AT&T mode) at least warn in that case (providing the
option to make this an error in a couple years time); I'm asking to make
this an error unconditionally in Intel mode (as it's an error in MASM).
>new instructions for both Intel and AT&T modes when more than 1
>size are available.
Jan