This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [PATCH] x86/Intel: fix indirect far jmp/call with operand size
- From: Christian Groessler <chris at groessler dot org>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:09:00 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/Intel: fix indirect far jmp/call with operand size
specified> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of H.J. Lu
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 12:29 AM
> To: Meissner, Michael
> Cc: Jan Beulich; email@example.com; Harle, Christophe
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: fix indirect far jmp/call
> with operand size specified
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:44:32PM -0500, Meissner, Michael wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: H.J. Lu [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:58 AM
> > > To: Jan Beulich
> > > Cc: email@example.com; Meissner, Michael
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: fix indirect far jmp/call
> with operand
> > > size specified
> > >
> > > > AMD does *not* say it's invalid, as I stated above.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > Can you check if AMD64 allows "jmp/call r/m16" in 64bit, which is
> > > invalid for Intel64?
> > On AMD processors, jmp/call r/m16 is legal in 64-bit mode,
> so it would
> > be nice if the assembler allowed such instructions to be generated.
> I am checking in this pach to allow 16-bit near indirect branches
> for x86-64.
Hmm, if Intel doesn't support it, but AMD does, shouldn't the behaviour be