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] Use per instruction prefix control.

From: Ilya Tocar <tocarip dot intel at gmail dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 19:35:51 +0300
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use per instruction prefix control.
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <20150406154625 dot GA15392 at msticlxl7 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAMe9rOo11n3yRRW_p3FV_VUBt4+FOGw1WD34eywgmSr5z9EE1w at mail dot gmail dot com>

On 06 Apr 08:57, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Ilya Tocar <tocarip.intel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > To deal with problems like
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17898
> > We need more fine-grained prefix control than
> > twobyte_has_mandatory_prefix[256]
> > Attached patch adds mandatory_prefix field to struct dis386,
> > which will be used to control allowed/mandatory/forbidden prefixes on
> > per instruction basis.
> >
> 
> A prefix can be optional for an opcode which may be UD
> with the other prefixes.  Please remove
> 
> #define PREFIX_OPTIONAL 0
> 
> and replace
> 
> { "vfpclassss",    { XMask, EXxmm_md, Ib }, PREFIX_OPTIONAL },
> 
> with
> 
> { "vfpclassss",    { XMask, EXxmm_md, Ib }, 0 },
> 
> OK with this change.
> 
> Thanks.
>
Thanks.

I've committed attached version

Attachment: patch.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Use per instruction prefix control.
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- [PATCH] Use per instruction prefix control.
  - From: Ilya Tocar
- Re: [PATCH] Use per instruction prefix control.
  - From: H.J. Lu

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