RE: [PATCH] x86: don't wrongly scale non-8-bit displacements

["Xiao, Wei3" <wei3 dot xiao at intel dot com>]

Done!
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23465

Thanks
Wei Xiao

-----Original Message-----
From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.tools@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:47 PM
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>; Xiao, Wei3 <wei3.xiao@intel.com>; Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: don't wrongly scale non-8-bit displacements

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30.07.18 at 15:19, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30.07.18 at 15:02, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> In commit b5014f7af2 I've removed (instead of replaced) a 
>>>>> conditional, resulting in addressing forms not allowing 8-bit 
>>>>> displacements to now get their displacements scaled under certain 
>>>>> circumstances. Re-add the missing conditional.
>>>>>
>>>>> gas/
>>>>> 2018-07-30  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>         * config/tc-i386.c (output_disp): Restrict scaling.
>>>>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/evex-no-scale.s,
>>>>>           testsuite/gas/i386/evex-no-scale-32.d
>>>>>           testsuite/gas/i386/evex-no-scale-64.d: New.
>>>>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp: Run new tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>>>> @@ -7965,7 +7965,8 @@ output_disp (fragS *insn_start_frag, off
>>>>>               int size = disp_size (n);
>>>>>               offsetT val = i.op[n].disps->X_add_number;
>>>>>
>>>>> -             val = offset_in_range (val >> i.memshift, size);
>>>>> +             val = offset_in_range (val >> (size == 1 ? i.memshift : 0),
>>>>> +                                    size);
>>>>>               p = frag_more (size);
>>>>>               md_number_to_chars (p, val, size);
>>>>>             }
>>>>
>>>> Please open a binutils bug against binutils 2.31 first  and mention
>>>> it in ChangeLog.   OK with that change.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but no - I'm not going to waste time writing bug reports 
>>> just for them to be closed again right away. I also don't think bug 
>>> fixes should be blocked upon such a requirement.
>>>
>>
>> Your patch changes assembler behavior to fix a regression in the 
>> released binutils.  All regressions should be tracked in
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
>>
>> It isn't a waste of time.
>
> If there are people who care about such tracking, then they're fine 
> creating an entry. Doing so is certainly a waste of _my_ time, and I 
> find it (once again) strange that bug fixes get blocked by non- 
> technical side issues. In the end you'd force me to hold back fixes 
> like this (until whoever else runs into it and it gets fixed it after 
> reporting through bugzilla), including the reporting of them.
>

Hi Wei,

Please open an assembler bug against binutils 2.31.

Thanks.


--
H.J.