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 v7] x86: replace adhoc (partly wrong) ambiguous operand checking for MOVSX/MOVZX


On 13.02.2020 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:00 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 13.02.2020 17:57, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:49 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13.02.2020 17:39, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>> If a project checks assembler warnings, it will fail to build with
>>>>> the new assembler.   We don't want it.
>>>>
>>>> That's the case for all other new warnings, too. H.J., come on - there
>>>> shouldn't be arbitrary / random differences in behavior. Things should
>>>> be predictable for people.
>>>
>>> That is one reason I'd like to see new errors, not new warnings.
>>
>> I.e. to break the build for everyone when we detect issues in their
>> that we previously didn't detect? That's precisely why things should
>> be warnings at least initially, to give people time to fix their
>> code without forcing them to do so right away.
> 
> For this particular case, there is no issue.

How do you know?

In the interest of avoiding to have the full patch blocked by you,
I guess I'll make the adjustment (perhaps by splitting out the
controversial part once again). But it's entirely bogus to do so,
and normally I wouldn't even want to put my name under such a
thing. I'll make this quite clear in the commit message and/or
the code comment.

Jan


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