[PATCH v2] x86-64: Relax BFD_RELOC_X86_64_GOTTPOFF check

[Jan Beulich]

On 01.07.2024 05:03, Kong, Lingling wrote:
> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
> @@ -7137,8 +7137,14 @@ md_assemble (char *line)
>                              && i.base_reg
>                              && i.base_reg->reg_num == RegIP
>                              && i.tm.operand_types[0].bitfield.class == Reg
> -                             && i.tm.operand_types[2].bitfield.class == Reg)
> -                    /* Allow APX: add %reg1, foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg2.  */
> +                            && (i.tm.operand_types[2].bitfield.class == Reg
> +                                || i.tm.operands == 2))

As before: You allow more than what you claim in the comment below,
unless I continue to be overlooking something: Aiui you want to
exclude forms with memory destination.

> +                   /* Allow APX:
> +                            add %reg1, foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg2
> +                            add foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg, %reg2
> +                            {nf} add foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg
> +                            {nf} add %reg1, foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg2
> +                            {nf} add foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg, %reg2.  */
>                     break;

I don't think the {nf} forms need naming specially. Or if they did,
I wouldn't see - as mentioned before - why the {evex} forms won't
need/want mentioning, too.

>From the presentation below one can get the impression that you're
altering indentation of the comment. It was properly indented though.
However, your patch also pretty clearly came through with corrupted
whitespace (no hard tabs at all), so it's not really clear what
changes.

Jan