From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <macro@linux-mips.org>
Received: from cvs.linux-mips.org (eddie.linux-mips.org [148.251.95.138])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB14D385803B
 for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Mon,  7 Dec 2020 14:15:16 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org EB14D385803B
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=linux-mips.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=none smtp.mailfrom=macro@linux-mips.org
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:33274 "EHLO localhost"
 rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP
 id S23991030AbgLGOPOcITLE (ORCPT <rfc822;binutils@sourceware.org>);
 Mon, 7 Dec 2020 15:15:14 +0100
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:15:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
cc: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>, binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: x86: Do not dump DS/CS segment overrides for branch hints
In-Reply-To: <20201202111043.GC25881@zn.tnic>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.2012071405370.2104409@eddie.linux-mips.org>
References: <20201202071955.GJ22649@bubble.grove.modra.org>
 <20201202104519.GB25881@zn.tnic> <20201202111043.GC25881@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Binutils mailing list <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/binutils>,
 <mailto:binutils-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/binutils>,
 <mailto:binutils-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:15:18 -0000

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> > So I'm thinking for this particular case, I should simply fix
> > align-branch-9.d to match the local label
> > 
> > 	[0-9]+ <.L_2>
> > 
> > because we show local labels now in .o disassembly.
> 
> Hmm, one more aspect: could it be that local labels are specified
> differently for the i386-bsd target?

 Sure, this is a non-ELF target and these do tend to do local labels 
differently.  Grep GAS sources for LOCAL_LABEL and refer Section 5.3 
"Symbol Names" in the GAS manual to see what to look for.

 Writing generic test cases that work everywhere can be tricky at times.

  Maciej