From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E91C3885C08 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:17:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 5E91C3885C08 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jbeulich@suse.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7624EAC2C for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PATCH 6/6] x86: also handle %k and %bnd in debugging helpers From: Jan Beulich To: binutils@sourceware.org References: <98893054-6c55-637b-703c-0cfd349a3154@suse.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:17:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <98893054-6c55-637b-703c-0cfd349a3154@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 10:17:28 -0000 Adjustment of this function was missed when support for the respective registers was added. gas/ 2020-06-XX Jan Beulich * config/tc-i386.c (pi): Add checks for RegMask and RegBND. --- I'd like to note that enabling of DEBUG386 in the source file breaks gas/i386/{,x86-64-}align-branch-6. I would think test cases should work correctly either way. --- Seeing that "class" can be non-zero right now solely for registers, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to simply check for ClassNone here, eliminating the risk of further register introduction to again miss adjusting this function. Of course then the risk of such omission is when a first non-register class would get introduced. --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c @@ -3198,10 +3198,12 @@ pi (const char *line, i386_insn *x) if (x->types[j].bitfield.class == Reg || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegMMX || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegSIMD + || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegMask || x->types[j].bitfield.class == SReg || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegCR || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegDR - || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegTR) + || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegTR + || x->types[j].bitfield.class == RegBND) fprintf (stdout, "%s\n", x->op[j].regs->reg_name); if (operand_type_check (x->types[j], imm)) pe (x->op[j].imms);