> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:15 PM
> To: Kong, Lingling <lingling.kong@intel.com>
> Cc: H. J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>; binutils@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86-64: Relax BFD_RELOC_X86_64_GOTTPOFF check
> 
> On 01.07.2024 05:03, Kong, Lingling wrote:
> > --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
> > +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
> > @@ -7137,8 +7137,14 @@ md_assemble (char *line)
> >                              && i.base_reg
> >                              && i.base_reg->reg_num == RegIP
> >                              && i.tm.operand_types[0].bitfield.class == Reg
> > -                             && i.tm.operand_types[2].bitfield.class == Reg)
> > -                    /* Allow APX: add %reg1, foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg2.  */
> > +                            && (i.tm.operand_types[2].bitfield.class == Reg
> > +                                || i.tm.operands == 2))
> 
> As before: You allow more than what you claim in the comment below, unless I
> continue to be overlooking something: Aiui you want to exclude forms with
> memory destination.
>
> > +                   /* Allow APX:
> > +                            add %reg1, foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg2
> > +                            add foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg, %reg2
> > +                            {nf} add foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg
> > +                            {nf} add %reg1, foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg2
> > +                            {nf} add foo@gottpoff(%rip), %reg, %reg2.
> > + */
> >                     break;
> 
> I don't think the {nf} forms need naming specially. Or if they did, I wouldn't see -
> as mentioned before - why the {evex} forms won't need/want mentioning, too.
> 
> From the presentation below one can get the impression that you're altering
> indentation of the comment. It was properly indented though.
> However, your patch also pretty clearly came through with corrupted whitespace
> (no hard tabs at all), so it's not really clear what changes.
> 
> Jan

Sorry for my  corrupted whitespace, there was a problem with the format of my email, so I re-sent the attachment. This version only modified the comment part, and the rest remained unchanged.

For such TLS sequences, it should only generated by compiler like GCC or LLVM not handwritten assembly codes. For compiler, it will generate NDD add(with memory it will have 3 operands) or NF add (with memory maybe 2 operands or 3 operands) as the comment below  for TLS sequence.

Thanks,
Lingling