This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- 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>, "Jonas Maebe" <jonas-devlists at watlock dot be>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:19:46 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <577655C002000078000FA593 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOodb0Grq+soDSJq4aZfneTEkmJy8_M-quUBn6FJyK_=6w at mail dot gmail dot com> <57768C3F02000078000FA6B0 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <20160701154345 dot Horde dot cBkeSkisJlFXdnORG8cFS7A at mail dot elis dot ugent dot be> <577693C902000078000FA6FB at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <20160701162450 dot Horde dot hClcNkisJlFXdn0ysfmHqqA at mail dot elis dot ugent dot be> <5776A08802000078000FA759 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOo_XMW2i7PurLee7y_VsiucwUjrPJEjHGuhWv9G1ipE4A at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 01.07.16 at 17:12, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 01.07.16 at 16:24, <jonas-devlists@watlock.be> wrote:
>>> So in the end, I guess the movzb/movzw change is fine, but this one is
>>> not. It's in inherent inconsistency related to the ability of leaving
>>> away the size suffixes in combination with the chosen mnemonics, it
>>> seems.
>>
>> I do not understand what inconsistency you refer to here. The
>> only inconsistency I can see is that one can't omit the suffixes
>> from these three instructions, unlike any others with GPR
>> operands.
>
> This mnemonic inconsistency comes from ISA and AT&T syntax.
> But there are no issues now.
There is - as said, I fell into the trap seeing "movzb" in source code
and assuming I then could also use "movzw" or "movsb" (etc). I
can certainly open a bug if that helps you re-consider.
> Why create new ones?
Where are there new issues being created?
Jan
- References:
- [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl