https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19660
--- Comment #6 from nholcomb at wisc dot edu ---
The fact that the rep prefixes cannot be used with these opcodes is not the
same as machine dependencies. This instruction will be invalid everywhere, so
it should be decoded as invalid.
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19660
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19660
--- Comment #4 from njholcomb at wi dot rr.com ---
Coming back to this, my concern is that outputting instructions with prefixes
where the prefixes cause the instruction to be undefined is misleading. If the
output of the decoder is intended
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19660
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to njholcomb from comment #2)
> Created attachment 9201 [details]
> Shows rep prefixes on non-string instructions
I got
:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19660
--- Comment #2 from njholcomb at wi dot rr.com ---
Created attachment 9201
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9201=edit
Shows rep prefixes on non-string instructions
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19660
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
