This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 14:34:22 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150511212331 dot GA1838 at intel dot com> <55520C440200007800079718 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOpFgSyJm-oceuDkrBYnBQGv01ywCc43WySqX21NTJYi4Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <555216370200007800079773 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOpOx=SSUZnCFimn4fBzFqNRDch8QYLn3Os_y7EfQH65Qw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5552318402000078000798A8 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOoqcr7aE8dr6E44KUK6JLrNMNcDNFFWhcb6K+14M=Y+=w at mail dot gmail dot com> <555233B602000078000798EF at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOrOS+K0R+r1jHCNwAkgrhjftHUOGt_wTuP8wRYcPdifmQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <555235930200007800079911 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1505121736050 dot 4883 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOo76QirYvEH=tX7BDBws3z=g0O8c+A1wSp+19yaNXUk1w at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1505121745550 dot 27315 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOqM+cojMqoz9Kwb_KedgZG-14_xFaV2mk=hNEQGUkDWVw at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1505121803030 dot 27315 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOqECoP=-Bz4neR1LnFsnPO94axMuSpEiOzjmJzbNgA_kA at mail dot gmail dot com>
Hi,
On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > Well, what do you suggest? Your change is clearly wrong as well.
>
> I won't call it wrong since it implies there is a right.
Of course there is a right. The x86-64 specification is quite clear what
happens with the prefix on jumps. Intel CPUs are simply buggy in not
implementing it. And you're making binutils follow that buggy behaviour.
And that is wrong. The associated bug report is invalid.
> Given that
>
> 0x66 jmp/call rel32
>
> works on Intel processors and crashes on AMD processors.
> I will keep my change in unlessl someone can show a real usage of
>
> 066 jmp/call rel16
>
> on AMD processors.
Huh, what? I must say I'm not very fond of your way of maintaining the
x86-64 binutils.
Ciao,
Michael.
- References:
- [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches
- Re: [committed, PATCH] Remove Disp16|Disp32 from 64-bit direct branches