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: PR gas/10637: x86 assembler failed to handle [addr] in Intel mode


>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 15.09.09 00:00 >>>
>On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In Intel mode, [rax + 0x100] is treated as memory while [0x100] is
>> treated as immediate value.  This patch changes [0x100] to memory.
>> I'd like to hear the reason why [0x100] shouldn't be treated as memory.
>> If there are no objections, I will check it in tomorrow.
>>
>
>This is a regression against binutils 2.19. We used to generate
>
>y.s:3: Warning: Treating `[0xEE000F0]' as memory reference
>
>I am checking in my patch.  I don't think the warning is necessary
>here.

If you already committed it, please revert it (unless you can give a good
reason why masm compatibility doesn't matter here). 2.19 wasn't masm
compatible in that respect (see my previous reply), and the warning was
to tell people to change their code (it may be considered unfortunate
that I decided to keep it generating a memory reference here when I
added the warning - generating an offset would certainly have *forced*
people to change their code in time).

Jan


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