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] x86: Add .nop directive to assembler

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>, Andrew Cooper <andrew dot cooper3 at citrix dot com>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at mips dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:55:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add .nop directive to assembler
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <CAMe9rOr9n4XwM4wMhR3RNP4EXUE37nu0ui3SL4-nUvLAF_T9yA@mail.gmail.com> <5A82B4CC02000078001A734A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <CAMe9rOqC-69okYQTNOJYcjsVF2LuAuKNV1-Ydh5Zb+m77Pzo_g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > Did you consider generalizing .skip instead (e.g. by allowing its FILL 
> > to be "@NOP" alongside an absolute expression)? I have to admit that 
> > adding a new directive looks a little odd to me when all you want is 
> > some more flexibility with an existing one.
> 
> This requires much bigger changes.  Also I like ".not SIZE, LIMIT". But 
> if everyone agrees that we should extend .skip, we can do that. This may 
> also remove the size limit.

If I may chime in, it didn't occur to me before Jan mentioned it, but yes, 
I also think extending .fill feels more natural.


Ciao,
Michael.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] x86: Add .nop directive to assembler
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- [PATCH] x86: Add .nop directive to assembler
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: [PATCH] x86: Add .nop directive to assembler
  - From: Jan Beulich
- Re: [PATCH] x86: Add .nop directive to assembler
  - From: H.J. Lu

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