x86 leal quirk

[Ulrich Drepper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Henderson wrote:

>>And while we're at it
>>
>>      leal    %ds:j@NTPOFF, %eax
> 
> 
> I'd warn for _any_ segment override on leal.

Makes little sense, does it?  leal implies %ds.  Why shouldn't a %ds
override be allowed?

Now if we'd have directives like

   .nonzero-segment-offset %ds
   .zero-segment-offset %gs

or whatever the syntax is, *then* I would like such a warning.  The
defaults for %cs, %ds, %es, and %ss would be .zero-segment-offset, for
%fs and %gs the default would be  .nonzero-segment-offset.

The pseudo ops have no effect on code generation but to get these
warnings they'd be very helpful.

- -- 
- ---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9j6Nn2ijCOnn/RHQRAjoOAJ4mpcId8/uS8I5+yE1POl71ZSGP/wCgxqSE
dpNT+/X7kMed9ep60VtLOxY=
=cJEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----