From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31536 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2012 16:24:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 31485 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2012 16:24:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nat28.tlf.novell.com (HELO nat28.tlf.novell.com) (130.57.49.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:24:20 +0000 Received: from EMEA1-MTA by nat28.tlf.novell.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:24:18 +0100 Message-Id: <501822FB0200007800091AC6@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:24:00 -0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: don't allow invalid operand combinations for VGATHER References: <500ECADF0200007800090386@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5017AA390200007800091775@nat28.tlf.novell.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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: 2012-07/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 >>> On 31.07.12 at 17:43, "H.J. Lu" wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 30.07.12 at 18:10, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> The VGATHER group of instructions requires that all three involved >>>> xmm/ymm registers are distinct. This patch adds code to check for this, >>>> and at once eliminates a superfluous check for not using PC-relative >>>> addressing for these instructions (the fact that an index register is >>>> required here already excludes valid PC-relative addresses). >>>> >>> >>> The assembler should only check the operands which can't be >>> encoded. It should shouldn't check if operands are functional >>> correct. However, I don't mind to issue an error which is controlled >>> by a command line option. >> >> Hmm, not sure. Is there any precedent to such behavior? I as a >> programmer would appreciate if the assembler rejected anything >> that's invalid. >> >> In the case you stay on that position, would making the new >> diagnostic an unconditional warning be acceptable instead? >> >=20 > Can you also add a command line option to turn it off and > turn warning into error? That should be possible, yes. Jan