ENTER/BOUND operands order.

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 17.01.14 at 09:36, Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fundamental reason is MASM compatibility. Irrespective of what
>> you said earlier, MASM has to be treated as the reference
>> implementation for Intel syntax. As much as I would think nowadays
>> GAS is the AT&T syntax reference implementation (even if - see the
>> context within this hole thread started - lack of care in how newer
>> instructions got handled put this under question).
> Could you please point me to the MASM reference describing the case we are
> talking about?  I looked at [1], but it lacks even 'ZMMWORD' keyword, so I
> assumed that AVX-512 isn't supported there at all.  (I'm not a MASM expert, 
> so maybe I'm just looking at completely wrong place).

I said this in an earlier reply - I have no such reference, but I'm
sure this is at least in the works at Microsoft.

>> As to "no objections" - I don't think it is reasonable to have gone
>> through the huge new test cases line by line to spot such oddities.
>> Furthermore, along with spotting these I also spotted other
>> mistakes heavily suggesting that the expected output was just
>> taken verbatim from what objdump produced, without checking
>> whether that output matched up with the input (i.e. what is there
>> could be there intentionally, but it could also just happen to be
>> that way).
> That's not it.  Both ASM and objdump tables were generated automatically, 
> and
> the rounding/sae operand needed a special handling there.  This order was 
> chosen
> intentionally.
> BTW, could you please report other mistakes you found?

As said, I'll do so once I have fixes available.

Jan