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 1/3] x86: extend LEA's segment override warning

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse dot com>
Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:11:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: extend LEA's segment override warning
References: <20d349db-7e31-294b-cefb-f22265d8bff2@suse.com> <5a4cb285-3d1a-8842-8b4b-94423a37e8d0@suse.com>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 6:05 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> For one both possible forms should be warned about. And then there are
> a couple of MPX insns behaving LEA-like, which should be warned about in
> the same way. Finally, to guard against future surprises, qualify the
> original opcode check by excluding VEX/EVEX-like templates.
>
> gas/
> 2020-02-XX  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
>         * config/tc-i386.c (process_operands): Also check insn prefix
>         for ineffectual segment override warning. Also cover BNDC* and
>         BNDMK there. Don't cover possible VEX/EVEX encoded insns there.
>         * testsuite/gas/i386/lea.s, testsuite/gas/i386/lea.d,
>         testsuite/gas/i386/lea.e: New.
>         * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp: Run new test.
>

Why should it be warning, not error?


-- 
H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: extend LEA's segment override warning
  - From: Jan Beulich

References:
- [PATCH 0/3] x86: segment override handling adjustments
  - From: Jan Beulich
- [PATCH 1/3] x86: extend LEA's segment override warning
  - From: Jan Beulich

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