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


On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>> "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).

I will take a look.

Please tell me which version masm you used. Mine doesn't
take [] as immediate.

>>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).
>

Binutils 2.15 doesn't give any warning. And the warning says

y.s:3: Warning: Treating `[0xEE000F0]' as memory reference

What does it mean?

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.


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