This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic
On 12.11.2019 21:43, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:16 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11.11.2019 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On the positive side this fixes MOVDIRI handling: Previously only
>>>> the operand-size less cases below would have been accepted, whereas
>>>> now all 6 valid ones remain without diagnostic.
>>
>> (Leaving this in context for the question below.)
>>
>>>> Btw, would you mind me putting in the testsuite parts of the
>>>> alternative patches I had sent for this PR?
>>
>> [You didn't reply to this at all.]
>
> Sure, please submit a patch.
Well, I did submit a pair of them already, and my question is if I
may put them in with the tc-i386.c change dropped.
>>>> movdiri [rcx], eax
>>>> movdiri dword ptr [rcx], eax
>>>> movdiri qword ptr [rcx], eax
>>>>
>>>> movdiri [rcx], rax
>>>> movdiri dword ptr [rcx], rax
>>>> movdiri qword ptr [rcx], rax
>>>>
>>>> .code32
>>>> movdiri [ecx], eax
>>>> movdiri dword ptr [ecx], eax
>>>> movdiri qword ptr [ecx], eax
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you submit a patch?
>>
>> A patch to do what? Extend existing testcases? Shouldn't this
>> once again have been the job of the person adding support for
>> the insn?
>
> I'd like to avoid touching Intel syntax.
So what are the answers to the first two questions then?
Jan