https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #9 from Jan Beulich <jbeulich at novell dot com> --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8) > (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #7) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > > > If gas doesn't allow multiple segment registers in AT&T syntax, it > > > shouldn't allow them in Intel syntax. > > > > I can only keep telling you that I view maximum possible compatibility with > > MASM more important that compatibility between the under-specified (or > > should I say not specified at all) AT&T syntax. As the maintainer of the > > Intel syntax code I would not have approved the patch in the shape you've > > committed it. Please fix it to avoid the need to revert. > > My understanding is that gas can't assemble many assembly codes which > accept MASM. Of course, hence me saying "maximum possible compatibility" (instead of saying "full"). > It is more important for gas to be consistent with itself. That's a bogus goal imo: Different assembly syntax can naturally result in apparent inconsistencies. > In the case of "fs:gs:[eax]", you can replace it with > "fs:[eax]" to get the same output. In straight line code yes. But what if a first override is hidden deep in a macro you can't or don't want to modify, but you need to add an override to in one special case? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
