This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Kirill Yukhin" <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>, "Christian Ludloff" <ludloff at google dot com>, "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>,"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:36:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <552FE0630200007800072CD0 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOomWLMwQT6R2qLr1p7_dzmwuNLsz2PEk-6tV3NTt_=24Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <55390A6A0200007800075263 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOrSX3cgXCSJFsbDnKgnyNrX-Y4cYO2VL4uTrKV-O3fcCw at mail dot gmail dot com> <554906C70200007800076D28 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOp2bUnsU+Tn4RKLNw48h6JGiaGaX1ddqpGhyM3tsF7pTg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5549E2820200007800076F5F at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <555D9794020000780007C89A at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOoe8s+3iPvpbhF2p=c96zyvYijQ9eqs+4Gx5biF1E80OA at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>> On 21.05.15 at 12:42, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06.05.15 at 09:44, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> Please don't just repeat yourself, but give a reason I can understand
>>> to override the intention to conform with the Intel manual. I'm
>>> certainly hesitant to commit changes that can't be agreed upon, but
>>> as said before I don't feel tied to your disapproval of the changes.
>>
>> I guess I'll take two weeks of silence as silent withdrawal of the
>> objection to the patches then.
>
> Please don't change it. As I said before, we have discussed it at Intel
> and we don't think the change is appropriate.
So are you planning to change the SDM? Else I don't see what new
aspect you are trying to tell me. I'm hesitant to commit the changes
without your consent, but getting back silence or all the same
vague arguments I'm afraid all I can do is give you a little more
time (say a week; if you need more, please give a clear time line) to
come forward with something substantial.
(Also please recall me having stated before that the AT&T operand
ordering has got completely screwed up over its apparent original
intentions with all the more-than-two operand instructions that got
added over the last so many years. This brokenness should _not_
impact Intel syntax mode.)
Jan
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
- Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}