This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: fix AVX-512 16-bit addressing
>>> On 21.11.17 at 20:06, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>> @@ -4799,11 +4799,9 @@ check_VecOperands (const insn_template *
>> else
>> {
>> /* Vector insn can only have Vec_Disp8/Disp32 in
>> - 32/64bit modes, and Vec_Disp8/Disp16 in 16bit
>> - mode. */
>> + 64bit mode, and Vec_Disp8/Disp16/Disp32 in 16/32bit
>> + modes. */
>
> Do we really support 32-bit displacement in 16-bit mode or with 0x67
> address prefix?
What a strange question: Of course we do, and why would we not?
Using 32-bit addresses in 16-bit mode is quite useful, and using 16-bit
addresses in 32-bit mode is at least not illegal. And quite obviously
there should be no difference between EVEX encoded insns and any
other ones.
But then again your question is formulated a little strangely, so I may
not be getting what you actually mean: The "or" in particular is
confusing me, since 32-bit addressing in 16-bit mode obviously requires
the 0x67 prefix to be used.
Jan