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: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "Jonas Maebe" <jonas-devlists at watlock dot be>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:29:35 -0600
- 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> <20160701172054 dot Horde dot HeQoXUisJlFXdopWUoVFS3A at mail dot elis dot ugent dot be>
>>> On 01.07.16 at 17:20, <jonas-devlists@watlock.be> wrote:
> Jan Beulich wrote on Fri, 01 Jul 2016:
>> 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.
>
> It is not consistent that all base mnemonics (i.e., without size
> suffix) refer to individual opcodes (or groups of opcodes) as defined
> in Intel's architecture manuals, except for movsb/w/l.
Intel's manuals know of no movzb, lcall, and several others. These
manuals can't be used as reference here.
Jan
- 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
- Re: [PATCH] x86: allow suffix-less sign-extending movsb, movsw, and movsl