public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] x86-64: Intel64 adjustments for insns dealing with far pointers
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <21ce99c2-5dd5-c4cd-ad00-ab91aa2cf551@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOo+T7vephVhjFkQtP-2o+67nu3=5d0e17cS-B+TRc0t=g@mail.gmail.com>

On 11.02.2020 12:52, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:26 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> AMD and Intel differ in their handling of far indirect branches as well
>> as LFS/LGS/LSS: AMD CPUs ignore REX.W while Intel ones honors it. (Note
>> how the latter three were hybrids so far, while far branches were fully
>> AMD-like.)
>>
>> gas/
>> 2020-02-XX  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
>>         PR gas/24546
>>         * config/tc-i386-intel.c (i386_intel_operand): Also handle CALL/JMP
>>         in O_tbyte_ptr case.
>>         * doc/c-i386.texi: Mention far call and full pointer load ISA
>>         differences.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-branch-3.s,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-intel64.s: Add 64-bit far call cases.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-branch-3.d,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-intel64.d: Adjust expectations.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-branch-5.l,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-branch-5.s: New.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp: Run new test.
>>
>> opcodes/
>> 2020-02-XX  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
>>         PR gas/24546
>>         * i386-dis.c (putop): Handle REX.W in '^' case for Intel64 mode.
>>         * i386-opc.tbl (lfs, lgs, lss, lcall, ljmp): Split into
>>         Amd64 and Intel64 templates.
>>         (call, jmp): Likewise for far indirect variants. Dro
>>         Unspecified.
>>         * i386-tbl.h: Re-generate.
> 
> OK.

There'll need to be a v6, as I've spotted an issue with non-64-bit
code in -mintel64 mode (which occurred to me only when starting to
deal with the vendor difference also for Jcc). v4 had an adjustment
for this, and I wrongly thought it could be dropped altogether when
re-basing over your Intel64-only change. (On the positive side I
think a few other templates will be able to be folded as a follow-on
to the fix I'm intending to make.)

Jan

      reply	other threads:[~2020-02-12  8:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-11 10:23 [PATCH v5 0/5] x86: operand size handling improvements Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 10:25 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] x86: replace adhoc (partly wrong) ambiguous operand checking for MOVSX/MOVZX Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 10:25 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] x86: also disallow non-byte/-word registers with byte/word suffix Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:27   ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 10:25 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:43   ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 11:55     ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 12:20       ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 12:58         ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 13:02           ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 13:04             ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 13:07               ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 16:45                 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 17:04                   ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 20:12                     ` [PATCH] x86: Remove movsx/movzx with memory operand from AT&T syntax H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 23:34                       ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 23:52                         ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-12  3:19                           ` [PATCH] x86: Remove movsx/movzx with 16/32-bit " H.J. Lu
2020-02-12  9:19                             ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 10:26 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] x86: correct VFPCLASSP{S,D} operand size handling Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:50   ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 12:49     ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 12:56       ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 10:27 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] x86-64: Intel64 adjustments for insns dealing with far pointers Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:53   ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-12  8:11     ` Jan Beulich [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=21ce99c2-5dd5-c4cd-ad00-ab91aa2cf551@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).