On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > This adds support for a few more instruction patterns that are > apparentl needed by gcc 4.8. Taken from binutils 2.17. Not sure if > adding NoRex64 to the existing patterns is really necessary, but it > shouldn't hurt.
This arose because AMD screwed up and specifed "movd" instead of "movq" for the "mov r/m64 mm" opcodes, right? If we're going to pull in the movq changes from binutils 2.17, I think we should pull in the matching movd changes (including that wonderful comment). Looks like even binutils 2.17's disassembler shows this as movd instead of movq. They must have changed that later. Darn. Philip Guenther
