[PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 01.07.16 at 17:12, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 01.07.16 at 16:24, <jonas-devlists@watlock.be> wrote:
>>> So in the end, I guess the movzb/movzw change is fine, but this one is
>>> not. It's in inherent inconsistency related to the ability of leaving
>>> away the size suffixes in combination with the chosen mnemonics, it
>>> seems.
>>
>> I do not understand what inconsistency you refer to here. The
>> only inconsistency I can see is that one can't omit the suffixes
>> from these three instructions, unlike any others with GPR
>> operands.
> 
> This mnemonic inconsistency comes from ISA and AT&T syntax.
> But there are no issues now.

There is - as said, I fell into the trap seeing "movzb" in source code
and assuming I then could also use "movzw" or "movsb" (etc). I
can certainly open a bug if that helps you re-consider.

>  Why create new ones?

Where are there new issues being created?

Jan