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 v2 5/9] x86: improve handling of insns with ambiguous operand sizes

On 08.11.2019 16:54,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:09 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 07.11.2019 18:47,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
>>> I don't think DefaultSize matters for them either in AT&T syntax.
>>> and I don't think we should add DefaultSize to more instructions.
>>
>> Then _again_ - what is your alternative suggestion?
> 
> Don't add DefaultSize to more instructions.

So I think I've recalled meanwhile: The issue is with us not wanting
to issue diagnostics on e.g. LGDT despite it allowing multiple
operand sizes. Instead, just like for PUSH/POP etc we want to silently
default to the most appropriate operand size for the mode. Hence
adding DefaultSize seems very applicable to me here.

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