This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: fold RegEip/RegRip and RegEiz/RegRiz
>>> On 02.08.18 at 14:28, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-mpx-inval-2.l
>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-mpx-inval-2.l
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>> .*:6: Error: 32-bit address isn't allowed in 64-bit MPX instructions.
>> .*:7: Error: 32-bit address isn't allowed in 64-bit MPX instructions.
>> .*:8: Error: `\(%rip\)' cannot be used here
>> -.*:9: Error: 32-bit address isn't allowed in 64-bit MPX instructions.
>> +.*:9: Error: .*
>>
>
> We should keep "32-bit address isn't allowed in 64-bit MPX instructions"
> error.
Are you suggesting to special case the place the error message now
gets raised, just to get the wording the same as before? What's wrong
with it being either the previous one or the analogue to "`(%rip)'
cannot be used here", i.e. "`(%eip)' cannot be used here". When a
single statement is wrong in multiple possible ways, I don't think there
should be a requirement which of the issues the assembler reports, as
long as it reports exactly one (I find it odd enough that there are
cases where two errors get reported for a single statement, but I'll
get to that eventually as well).
Jan