From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6482 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2012 15:44:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 6470 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2012 15:44:03 -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-qc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-qc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.216.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:43:50 +0000 Received: by qcsd16 with SMTP id d16so4314426qcs.0 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:43:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.151.197 with SMTP id us5mr2913199veb.14.1343749429935; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.179.79 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:43:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5017AA390200007800091775@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <500ECADF0200007800090386@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5017AA390200007800091775@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: don't allow invalid operand combinations for VGATHER 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/msg00312.txt.bz2 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? > Can you also add a command line option to turn it off and turn warning into error? Thanks. -- H.J.