This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: ENTER/BOUND operands order.
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "Michael Zolotukhin" <michael dot v dot zolotukhin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, <slawomir dot wojtasiak at swksoftware dot pl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:44:52 +0000
- Subject: Re: ENTER/BOUND operands order.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <3482868a668de8ebe53975eb7d79d725 dot qmail at home dot pl> <b4fcb2a62aa358bc134689ccd33eebcb dot qmail at home dot pl> <52D7A465020000780011423E at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <CANtU078BKxoUiKdmqp8ii0TFvi2T1itzzn7dicQoAbKzdwtRmg at mail dot gmail dot com> <52D807FE02000078001144A2 at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <CANtU07-s=VXv2yCb2FA_Dyco14d5LiC4of7r7zCkNa+4_omFxg at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 16.01.14 at 16:38, Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> This document "syntax" is not the actual assembly syntax. The
> presence of {er} or {sae} there just means the instruction supports
> those encodings. I agree that it could lead to some confusion, but
> this document describes instructions, not syntax.
Is there anything supporting this view of yours?
Is there any other case where the instruction descriptions don't
very closely resemble assembly syntax?
> Unfortunately, there is no document describing the assembly syntax (at
> least, to my knowledge), and the tests are the best reference point we
> have.
That would be very odd: Tests setting language standards. If you
don't take the Intel manual as sufficient reference, the next best
thing setting a standard here is MASM. Did you check how they
require the operands to be ordered?
Jan