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] |
>>> "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] |