From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25240 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2007 15:54:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 25232 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2007 15:54:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.203) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:54:29 +0100 Received: (qmail 2957 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 15:54:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@75.61.93.153 with login) by smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 15:54:27 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: ZAX5vHsVM1nglAuuISoVhnT0LxS13xXuqQvTxiiNBMOS.BQeQJwCjfRX7HfprLchkx8WJSGwRg-- Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id AB7B846EEA5; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:59:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Jan Beulich Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Why aren't we consistent on displacement in x86 disassembler? Message-ID: <20070426155426.GA14771@lucon.org> References: <20070426135749.GA9666@lucon.org> <20070426144929.GA8011@lucon.org> <4630E319.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4630E319.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >We can do one of > > > >1. Use decimal on all 8bit displacements and hex on all 16/32bit > >displacement. > >2. Use hex on all displacements. > > > >Any comments? > > I'd prefer option 2. Jan I have another idea. We use decimal on all displacements which can be fitted in 8 bits since -128 is easier to read than 0xffffff80 and is what is in the original assembly code anyway. H.J.