From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26709 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2012 18:45:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 26696 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2012 18:45:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:45:14 +0000 Received: by vbkv13 with SMTP id v13so6922402vbk.0 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.156.47 with SMTP id wb15mr13556435vdb.53.1343760313190; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.179.79 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:45:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <501823DA0200007800091ACA@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <500EC9B00200007800090382@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <500FB4C4020000780009058B@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5017965C020000780009170B@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <501823DA0200007800091ACA@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] gas/x86-64: properly distinguish low and high register ranges From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jan Beulich Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00324.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.07.12 at 17:48, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 30.07.12 at 18:04, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 24.07.12 at 16:16, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>>>>> Can you add some testcases? >>>>> >>>>> I knew you would ask this, but sorry, this makes no sense - if test >>>>> cases would are desirable here, they shouldn't be testing just the >>>>> things that this patch fixes, but also any other invalid operand >>>>> combinations. As an example - why would testing that "xlat [r11]" >>>>> isn't accepted be needed, but not e.g. "xlat [ecx]"? >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, this fixes actually broken behavior, so accepting >>>>> the change shouldn't be dependent upon test case availability. >>>> >>>> What broken behavior does this change fix? >>> >>> I gave an example above - xlat [r11]. Other similar examples >>> involve other string instructions requiring fixed registers as >>> well as the one or two instructions requiring xmm0/ymm0 as >>> their first/last operand. >>> >> >> Please open a bug report for broken behaviors. > > That's bureaucracy that doesn't get us anywhere. I'd really > like to know whether the patch is okay; entering bug reports > is meaningful if one _can't_ fix a problem right away. > I'd like to see the impact of broken behaviors and verify that the change fixes them. -- H.J.