[PATCH v2 5/9] x86: improve handling of insns with ambiguous operand sizes

[Jan Beulich]

On 13.11.2019 22:12,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> What do you mean by improving AT&T syntax?  AT&T syntax has
> many quirks.  We should leave them alone if we can.

May I kindly ask you to read the description of this patch again.
Current AT&T behavior is, as far as I'm concerned, intolerably
dangerous (and in the course of putting together this change
over the last couple of years it has helped point out actual
mistakes in other projects that I've been building with early
versions of this change in place).

Jan