This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [patches] Re: x86-64 gas part II

To: Alan Modra <alan at linuxcare dot com dot au>
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: x86-64 gas part II
From: Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:05:09 +0100
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, patches at x86-64 dot org,binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <20001220144001.O31975@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012210932380.28902-100000@front.linuxcare.com.au>

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:29:20AM +1100, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> 
> > + {"rex",    0, 0x40, X, Cpu64,  NoSuf|IsPrefix,        { 0, 0, 0} },
> > + {"rexz",   0, 0x41, X, Cpu64,  NoSuf|IsPrefix,        { 0, 0, 0} },
> 
> Do these "rex" prefixes actually appear in instructions?  ie. Does it make
> sense to accept a line like " rex mov ..."?  If not, then these prefixes
> shouldn't be in the table.

It makes sense for some instructions like iret or sysret, which change their
operation then, but these could as well be specified with a 'q' suffix. 

-Andi (who is glad that a real problem was found after this useful K&R discussion)

References:
- x86-64 gas part II
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: x86-64 gas part II
  - From: Alan Modra

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]