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

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

This is a problem only for Intel syntax and DefaultSize affects both
Intel syntax and AT&T syntax.  Since we can't have both DefaultSize
and IgnoreSize at the same time, can they be merged and leave it
for Intel syntax to deal with it?


-- 
H.J.