This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: Jonas Maebe <jonas-devlists at watlock dot be>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 08:12:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <577655C002000078000FA593 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOodb0Grq+soDSJq4aZfneTEkmJy8_M-quUBn6FJyK_=6w at mail dot gmail dot com> <57768C3F02000078000FA6B0 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <20160701154345 dot Horde dot cBkeSkisJlFXdnORG8cFS7A at mail dot elis dot ugent dot be> <577693C902000078000FA6FB at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com> <20160701162450 dot Horde dot hClcNkisJlFXdn0ysfmHqqA at mail dot elis dot ugent dot be> <5776A08802000078000FA759 at prv-mh dot provo dot novell dot com>
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01.07.16 at 16:24, <jonas-devlists@watlock.be> wrote:
>> Referring again to the above document, it says about movsb/movsw:
>> "movsb is not movsb{wlq}" and "movsw
>> is not movsw{lq}" (on p. 37). Those are the only mnemonics that are
>> singled out in this way.
>
> Well, the document referenced is a random one; it's way too new
> to be a canonical reference.
>
>> So in the end, I guess the movzb/movzw change is fine, but this one is
>> not. It's in inherent inconsistency related to the ability of leaving
>> away the size suffixes in combination with the chosen mnemonics, it
>> seems.
>
> I do not understand what inconsistency you refer to here. The
> only inconsistency I can see is that one can't omit the suffixes
> from these three instructions, unlike any others with GPR
> operands.
This mnemonic inconsistency comes from ISA and AT&T syntax.
But there are no issues now. Why create new ones?
--
H.J.
- References:
- [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl