From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-76374-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26869 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2012 16:05:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 26855 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2012 16:05:12 -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-vc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:04:58 +0000
Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10so5454474vcb.0        for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.156.47 with SMTP id wb15mr10538806vdb.53.1343664297922; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.179.79 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <500FB4C4020000780009058B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
References: <500EC9B00200007800090382@nat28.tlf.novell.com>	<CAMe9rOrY+ECKpfYM23heJB4Ma1BT9aFd2+-z1oVdhq3EiXwdRQ@mail.gmail.com>	<500FB4C4020000780009058B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:05:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOpkWhd8idXjWVQSYTQu6xQyZHfG7SkN54m28xasgp8YeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gas/x86-64: properly distinguish low and high register ranges
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
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: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24.07.12 at 16:16, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 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? Why hasn't it been
tested in the testsuite?


-- 
H.J.