This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: fs register syntax bug?


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


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