x86: correct operand type checks

Jan Beulich JBeulich@suse.com
Thu Dec 14 08:43:00 GMT 2017


Again these look to be typos: No template currently allows for any two
(or all three) of RegXMM, RegYMM, and RegZMM in a single operand. Quite
clearly ! are missing, after the addition of which the checks for the
first and (if present) second operands also fully match up.

gas/
2017-12-14  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>

	* config/tc-i386.c (match_template): Add missing ! to
	reg{x,y,z}mm checks in q- and l-suffix handling.

--- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
+++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
@@ -4968,9 +4968,9 @@ match_template (char mnem_suffix)
 	       && !operand_types[0].bitfield.regymm
 	       && !operand_types[0].bitfield.regzmm)
 	      || (!operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regmmx
-		  && operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regxmm
-		  && operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regymm
-		  && operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regzmm))
+		  && !operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regxmm
+		  && !operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regymm
+		  && !operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regzmm))
 	  && (t->base_opcode != 0x0fc7
 	      || t->extension_opcode != 1 /* cmpxchg8b */))
 	continue;
@@ -4985,7 +4985,7 @@ match_template (char mnem_suffix)
 	       && ((!operand_types[0].bitfield.regmmx
 		    && !operand_types[0].bitfield.regxmm)
 		   || (!operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regmmx
-		       && operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regxmm)))
+		       && !operand_types[t->operands > 1].bitfield.regxmm)))
 	continue;
 
       /* Do not verify operands when there are none.  */





More information about the Binutils mailing list