https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
--- Comment #8 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> Care to make a patch?
Well, I've added it to my list of things to look into, but there are various
other things higher up that list, so it's not clear at all when
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24434
--- Comment #2 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Fixed in bintuils with:
>
> commit 629cfaf1b0fbb32a985607c774bd8e7870b9fa94 (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad)
> Author: Jan Beulich
> Date: Mon Jul 30 17:25:05 2018
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22871
--- Comment #13 from Jan Beulich ---
One more pair of cases to consider is conversion of word/dword/qword add/sub
with an immediate of 128 to sub/add with -128 as immediate.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22871
--- Comment #6 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> I updated users/hjl/optimize branch to encode
>
> testq $imm31, mem
>
> as
>
> testl $imm31, mem
>
> only at -O2.
I was about to suggest that, also
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22871
Jan Beulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at novell dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22441
Jan Beulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #26 from Jan Beulich ---
https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=eb0660c6950e08e44fdfeca3e29320382e2a1554
replaces the original commit.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gas
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: jbeulich at novell dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This piece of code
.text
.intel_syntax noprefix
.global _start
_start:
ret
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #25 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
> Please don't do that.
Why would I not? As indicated, you didn't obtain maintainer approval. In fact
I've just checked the mailing list archives - you didn't even
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #23 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #22)
> The MASM syntax expression parser supports -masm=intel.
How that? The compiler doesn't emit expressions, it does all the calculations
and emits plain numbers. Are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #21 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20)
> MASM is totally irrelevant here.
This is your opinion, which I don't share. Is this formally written down
anywhere? Plus the presence of a MASM syntax expression
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #19 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #17)
> > This is a tentative patch which could replace the bad one. Only tested on
> > 2.29.1 so far.
>
> Does GCC behave the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #17 from Jan Beulich ---
This is a tentative patch which could replace the bad one. Only tested on
2.29.1 so far.
--- 2.29.1/gas/config/tc-i386-intel.c
+++ 2.29.1/gas/config/tc-i386-intel.c
@@ -411,7 +413,19 @@ static int
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #15 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #11)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > > Do you have a real example?
> >
> > No, I don't. But I don't assume you
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #11 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > > 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
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #9 from Jan Beulich ---
(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 syntax, it
> > >
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #5 from Jan Beulich ---
(I can't, btw, see how to change the status of the bug back from RESOLVED
FIXED, or how to re-assign it. Pretty strange a UI limitation as it seems.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
Jan Beulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at novell dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20318
Jan Beulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20318
--- Comment #2 from Jan Beulich ---
Not sure what you're trying to tell me here: The title clearly says this is an
issue in Intel mode only.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Component: gas
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: jbeulich at novell dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 9373
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9373=edit
small set of examples
The attached example demonstra
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17421
Jan Beulich jbeulich at novell dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14439
--- Comment #3 from Jan Beulich jbeulich at novell dot com 2012-08-08
09:35:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Can you add ATTsyntax to existing monitor/wait entries and new
ones with Intelsyntax to i386-opc.tbl deal with it?
That might
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14439
Bug #: 14439
Summary: x86/Intel mode: diagnostics for monitor/mwait operands
are issued with wrong operand numbers
Product: binutils
Version: 2.23 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14439
--- Comment #1 from Jan Beulich jbeulich at novell dot com 2012-08-07
10:58:27 UTC ---
A patch to carry out the preferred solution can be found at
http://www.sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-07/msg00173.html.
--
Configure bugmail: http
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12374
Jan Beulich jbeulich at novell dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12374
Summary: ld fails to convert global hidden symbols to local
ones
Product: binutils
Version: 2.21
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2010-07-12 15:17
---
(In reply to comment #2)
When binutils is compiled with -O0, this error:
gas/i386/intelbad.s:156: Error: operand type mismatch for `mov'
doesn't show up.
As I said - I do not see this here
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2010-06-21 06:51
---
Actually, masm considers this a syntax error (i.e. doesn't allow dword et al not
any place a number would be accepted. Kind of confusing, but in any case not a
hint to accept this (unconditionally) the way nasm
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2010-06-21 10:36
---
For what it's worth, the same doesn't abort in 2.20.1.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11732
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2010-06-21 15:32
---
(In reply to comment #5)
When does MASM treat BYTE, WORD, DWORD, ... as numbers?
As operands to most operators (or as an expression on their own), but apparently
not (generally) to []. Beyond
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2008-05-14 12:24
---
This should of course also be adjusted for vcvts12sd/vcvts12ss.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6517
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2007-02-28 08:25
---
As can be seen from the generated opcode, 'rax' is taken as a symbol name rather
than a register here. This is the expected behavior when not using % prefixes
for register names.
--
What
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2006-11-16 08:15
---
patch committed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2006-11-13 15:09
---
I would think that symbol_equated_reloc_p() for such a symbol should return
true, but it doesn't. Investigating further...
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3469
--- You are receiving
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-10-20 11:31
---
This should be fixed with
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00112.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-09-29 08:29
---
See also http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00280.html and its
follow-ups.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1387
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gas
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: jbeulich at novell dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: *-*-*
GCC host
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-05-09 15:40
---
Yes, a similar issue was reported against sparc; this needs to be fixed in the
hppa code. There was some discussion regarding that on the mailing list, and
since a few more targets are affected by this I
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-05-06 06:59
---
Both the sparc failure and the ones mentioned in the previous entry being caused
by other reasons should be fixed now. None of the other mentioned targets'
maintainers reacted, and since they're not the topic
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-04-20 07:52
---
Also applied to 2.16.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-04-19 07:01
---
ia64-specific patch applied to mainline; awaiting release manager approval for
2.16...
--
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=847
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-04-18 08:48
---
I just submitted a patch to undo the rejecting of zero-length symbol names;
however, as said before, while this addresses the immediate issue reported here
I continue to believe that stuff like
.file hash
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-04-15 13:34
---
This is more wide-spread, other affected targets are hppa, ns32k, and vax.
Slightly different reasons cause d30v, dlx, i860, and or32 to fail. For these,
the testcase output expectation needs to be adjusted; I
44 matches
Mail list logo
