From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Modra <alan@SPRI.Levels.UniSA.Edu.Au>
To: Alexander Sokolov <robocop@amur.rosnet.ru>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `bswap'
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906221555130.30966-100000@mullet.itr.unisa.edu.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906221622150.2593-100000@ns.amur.rosnet.ru>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q2/msg00324.html

On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Alexander Sokolov wrote:

> I can't compile openssl with the latest (2.9.4.0.x) binutils because
> assembler produces an error message for bswapl instruction.
> Why l suffix is no longer allowed for bswap?

ix86 binutils 2.9.4 does a lot more syntax checking than previous
binutils, rejecting such combinations as:

	pushb	%al
	setae	%eax
	ldsb	0,%eax
	setnew	0
	div	%cx,%al
	fstb	%st,0
	xlatw
	stil
	jaw	bone

I guess you could argue that "bswapl" should be allowed as bswap indeed
does work on 32 bit regs.  The patch to allow this is simple.

--- binutils-current/include/opcode/i386.h~	Fri May 14 14:04:03 1999
+++ binutils-current/include/opcode/i386.h	Tue Jun 22 16:16:45 1999
@@ -766,7 +766,7 @@
 
 /* 486 extensions */
 
-{"bswap",   1, 0x0fc8, X, NoSuf|ShortForm,	{ Reg32,0,0 } },
+{"bswap",   1, 0x0fc8, X, l_Suf|ShortForm,	{ Reg32,0,0 } },
 {"xadd",    2, 0x0fc0, X, bwl_Suf|W|Modrm,	{ Reg, Reg|AnyMem, 0 } },
 {"cmpxchg", 2, 0x0fb0, X, bwl_Suf|W|Modrm,	{ Reg, Reg|AnyMem, 0 } },
 {"invd",    0, 0x0f08, X, NoSuf,		{ 0, 0, 0} },


If we allow "bswapl" though, what about the following?
aaab, aadw, aamw, aasb, daab, dasb, lahfb, sahfb
They all have as much claim to legitimacy as "bswapl".

Also, what about these?
arplw, lldtw, lmsww, ltrw, strw, verrw, verww, invlpgb, invlpgw, invlpgl

Comments anyone?  I'm inclined to allow them all.