This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:33:35 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5775139D02000078000FA084 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOqBeUwoexD_7kXJocucRZbA96u+B1pC-fbq4Q55zNVF-g at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:26, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
>> +++ 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d 2016-06-30 12:04:26.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>> +#objdump: -d
>> +#source: movz.s
>> +#name: x86 mov with zero-extend (32-bit object)
>> +
>> +.*: +file format .*
>> +
>> +Disassembly of section .text:
>> +
>> +0+ <movz>:
>> +[ ]*[a-f0-9]+: 66 0f b6 c0 * movzbw? %al,%ax
> ^
>
> What is `?' for?
Now that we accept the suffix-less mnemonic I don't think it would
be appropriate to demand the suffix to be issues by the disassembler
(unless in suffix-always mode, which isn't the case here).
Jan