This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: fix indirect far jmp/call with operand size specified


On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:33:42PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> -jmp, 1, 0xff, 0x4, 1, Cpu64, Modrm|No_bSuf|No_lSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf|NoRex64, { Reg64|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex|Disp8|Disp32|Disp32S|JumpAbsolute }
> >> +jmp, 1, 0xff, 0x4, 1, Cpu64, Modrm|No_bSuf|No_lSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf|NoRex64, { Reg16|Reg64|Word|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex|Disp8|Disp32|Disp32S|JumpAbsolute }
> >
> >This is wrong. 64bit jump/call only support 64bit reg/mem.
> 
> I just made jmp match call. And I'm pretty sure it's actually valid (despite
> being pointless); I think I even tried it out once. It's just like 16-bit
> push/pop is encodable, even though it makes little sense.
> 

My Intel64 SDM r26 says that only "jump/call r/m64" is supported in
64bit. Does AMD say differently?


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]