[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes
>>> On 03.07.18 at 10:46, <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:
> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36
> ...
>> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT&T mode is bad
>> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from
>> register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by upstream
>> gas in the future (mine does already).
> ...
>> - bt $9, EFLAGS(%rsp) /* interrupts off? */
>> + btl $9, EFLAGS(%rsp) /* interrupts off? */
> Hmmm....
> Does the operand size make any difference at all for the bit instructions?
> I'm pretty sure that the cpus (386 onwards) have always done aligned 32bit
> transfers (the docs never actually said aligned).
> I can't remember whether 64bit mode allows immediates above 31.
> So gas accepting 'btb $n,memory' is giving a false impression of
> what actually happens.

BTB does not exist at all. BTW and (on 64-bit) BTQ do exist though,
and they have behavior differing from BTL. The only AT&T syntax doc
I have says that L is the default suffix to be used, but there are cases
where this wasn't (and maybe still isn't) the case, so omitting a suffix
when register operands aren't available to size instructions has always
been a risky game.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-03 12:07    [W:0.076 / U:5.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site