This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: fs register syntax bug?
- From: Quentin Neill <quentin dot neill dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at novell dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:25:41 -0600
- Subject: Re: fs register syntax bug?
- References: <1e2421411002261408i4b43d81dt801cada51da5d998@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc81002261451i6988be13x1df25c101b947e2e@mail.gmail.com> <1e2421411003010752y7bd4cd9eu5a89facb22faecc8@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc81003010803q6fef3771h728975ecf193dbac@mail.gmail.com> <4B8BF9140200007800031E61@vpn.id2.novell.com>
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 01.03.10 17:03 >>>
>>On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Quentin Neill
>>> Is there a definitive "spec" for Intel syntax such as this?
>>I don't know. Jan did most of work on the current Intel
>>syntax support. He may have some ideas.
> If I need a reference, I either dig out one of my old (paper)
> manuals, use the online MASM documentation, or just try things
> out with one of the assemblers natively supporting MASM syntax.
>
> I haven't seen a really complete (from which one could derive without
> experimenting whether a given construct is supposed to be valid)
> manual yet, however.
>
> Jan
Thanks Jan.
FWIW I was needing the spec so I could write a better bug, but I'll
let this one go.
I tried this against all the x86_64 binutils I found "laying around".
The old way "[fs:rsp + rbp + OFFSET]" worked in 2.19.51.20081203 and
now it doesn't.
The new way "ptr fs:[rsp + rbp + OFFSET]" works on all I could find,
which makes me think it is the right way.
Thanks again,
--
Quentin