This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: allow 1- and 0-operand forms of fcomip and fucomip
>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 27.08.08 18:35 >>>
>On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>I really don't like those x87 gas extensions. It makes it harder to look them
>>>up in IA32/Intel64 SDM. I don't think we should add more unless we can't
>>>live without them.
>>
>> So ease of porting code from other assemblers doesn't count? Also, other
>
>Can you name the assemblers which support this extension? Porting
Borland's TASM (which I happen to prefer of MASM).
>of assembly code is nice, but very low priority. For this particular extension,
>I think assembly code should be changed according to IA32/Intel64 SDM.
So this basically means that I'll have to maintain the patch as a private
one infinitely.
>BTW, I have some MASM assembly codes I'd like to assemble with gas.
As you know you have to adjust it. But ideally you'd only have to adjust
the program structure (i.e. directives), but not any instructions. If that
doesn't work then I'd have to look into it.
Btw., I just finished implementing a less ad-hoc Intel parser that I intend
to commit in place of the current one once 2.19 got released. It needs
some new hooks in the general expression parser, but otherwise
completely uses that one rather than doing anything custom. Plus it's
smaller and (I believe) gets closer to MASM than the current one.
>> than what's in gas already, this patch only adds alternative forms (aliases)
>> with less operands, so lookup in manuals isn't affected - you still look for
>> the same opcode.
>>
>
>When I look at fcomip and fucomip in assembly code, I have to guess
>what they are.
Why? Just open the manual and select their entries. The only (minor in
my opinion) thing will be that the manual only shows them with two
operands, while the assembly could now show them with one or no
operand(s).
Jan