ENTER/BOUND operands order.

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 17.01.14 at 12:35, Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  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.
> In this case this doesn't look like a GAS error at all. Currently
> there are no other options, so the current GAS version (as it's
> already in product branches) should be taken as a reference.
> 
>> As said, I'll do so once I have fixes available.
> Ok, thanks. I'd be glad to help fixing any issues with the new
> instructions, so please don't hesitate to simply report them.

If you can make sense of this

	.text
avx512:
	.intel_syntax noprefix
	# Misplaced rounding identifiers (belong after eax); similar in disassembler
	vcvtsi2ss	xmm0, xmm0, {rn-sae}, eax
	vcvtusi2ss	xmm0, xmm0, {rn-sae}, eax

	# Disp8 scaled by 8 rather than 4
	vpmuldq		zmm0, zmm0, [edx+4]{1to8}
	vpmuldq		zmm0, zmm0, [edx+8]{1to8}
	vpmuludq	zmm0, zmm0, [edx+4]{1to8}
	vpmuludq	zmm0, zmm0, [edx+8]{1to8}

	# Disp8 disassembly scaled by 8 rather than 4
	vgatherqps	ymm1{k1}, [eax+zmm0+4]
	vpgatherqd	ymm1{k1}, [eax+zmm0+4]
	vpscatterqd	[eax+zmm0+4]{k1}, ymm0
	vscatterqps	[eax+zmm0+4]{k1}, ymm0

	# destination and index the same being accepted
	vgatherqps	ymm0{k1}, [eax+zmm0]
	vpgatherqd	ymm0{k1}, [eax+zmm0]

- I don't have the time right now to go into much detail here, not
to speak of enter bugs. The disassembly issue I have a 2.24-based
fix for:

--- a/opcodes/i386-dis.c
+++ b/opcodes/i386-dis.c
@@ -14196,13 +14197,11 @@ OP_E_memory (int bytemode, int sizeflag)
       switch (bytemode)
 	{
 	case vex_vsib_d_w_dq_mode:
+	case vex_vsib_q_w_dq_mode:
 	case evex_x_gscat_mode:
 	case xmm_mdq_mode:
 	  shift = vex.w ? 3 : 2;
 	  break;
-	case vex_vsib_q_w_dq_mode:
-	  shift = 3;
-	  break;
 	case x_mode:
 	case evex_half_bcst_xmmq_mode:
 	  if (vex.b)

Of course that also requires testsuite adjustments, and I didn't get
around to do and test all this on master yet.

> As for the case with BOUND/ENTER - it really looks strange, but I
> suppose it's some kind of historic legacy, and it's too late to change
> it now.

You seem to still not fully understand: BOUND/ENTER are the ones
that are correctly handled. Other (newer) instructions with only (or
multiple) source operands are the ones where sloppiness in coding/
understanding lead to inconsistent behavior.

Jan