From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97783 invoked by alias); 21 May 2015 11:37:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 97773 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2015 11:37:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail.emea.novell.com Received: from mail.emea.novell.com (HELO mail.emea.novell.com) (130.57.118.101) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:37:02 +0000 Received: from EMEA1-MTA by mail.emea.novell.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 21 May 2015 12:36:59 +0100 Message-Id: <555DDF7B020000780007CB72@mail.emea.novell.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:37:00 -0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: "Kirill Yukhin" , "Christian Ludloff" , "Binutils" ,"H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s} References: <552FE0630200007800072CD0@mail.emea.novell.com> <55390A6A0200007800075263@mail.emea.novell.com> <554906C70200007800076D28@mail.emea.novell.com> <5549E2820200007800076F5F@mail.emea.novell.com> <555D9794020000780007C89A@mail.emea.novell.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 >>> On 21.05.15 at 12:42, wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 06.05.15 at 09:44, wrote: >>> Please don't just repeat yourself, but give a reason I can understand >>> to override the intention to conform with the Intel manual. I'm >>> certainly hesitant to commit changes that can't be agreed upon, but >>> as said before I don't feel tied to your disapproval of the changes. >> >> I guess I'll take two weeks of silence as silent withdrawal of the >> objection to the patches then. >=20 > Please don't change it. As I said before, we have discussed it at Intel > and we don't think the change is appropriate. So are you planning to change the SDM? Else I don't see what new aspect you are trying to tell me. I'm hesitant to commit the changes without your consent, but getting back silence or all the same vague arguments I'm afraid all I can do is give you a little more time (say a week; if you need more, please give a clear time line) to come forward with something substantial. (Also please recall me having stated before that the AT&T operand ordering has got completely screwed up over its apparent original intentions with all the more-than-two operand instructions that got added over the last so many years. This brokenness should _not_ impact Intel syntax mode.) Jan