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 15:21 >>>
>On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>>
>
>Please tell me which masm treats [] as immediate. I tried one
>masm and it doesn't take [] as immediate.

Anyone I tried. I'm attaching sample source, object, and disassembly,
which luckily I kept from when I did the Intel syntax re-work (it has a
little bit of unrelated stuff, but I hope you can bare with that).

>Changing the meaning of [] is a bad idea since it breaks the existing
>assembly codes. I need a strong argument to tell my users to change
>their codes.

I understand that, but again that's why there was a warning in the
previous version(s).

Jan

Attachment: masm.dis
Description: Binary data

Attachment: masm.obj
Description: Binary data

Attachment: masm.asm
Description: Binary data


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