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: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less movzw and 64-bit movzb


On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:26, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> --- 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d  1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ 2016-06-30/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/movz32.d  2016-06-30 12:04:26.000000000 +0200
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>> +#objdump: -d
>>> +#source: movz.s
>>> +#name: x86 mov with zero-extend (32-bit object)
>>> +
>>> +.*: +file format .*
>>> +
>>> +Disassembly of section .text:
>>> +
>>> +0+ <movz>:
>>> +[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    66 0f b6 c0 *   movzbw? %al,%ax
>>                                                                  ^
>>
>> What is `?' for?
>
> Now that we accept the suffix-less mnemonic I don't think it would
> be appropriate to demand the suffix to be issues by the disassembler
> (unless in suffix-always mode, which isn't the case here).
>

Assembler output is controlled by "#objdump: -d".  Under what condition
will `?' be needed?  Also please use "#objdump: -dw" so that there is
always one line for each insn.

-- 
H.J.


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