From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-379986-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2711 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2012 10:08:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 2700 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2012 10:08:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_VL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:08:08 +0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug inline-asm/51863] invlpg with -masm=intel generates memory operand size error in assembly stage
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: inline-asm
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-51863-4-FvwotwekOA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51863-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51863-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg01661.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51863

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-15 10:08:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > What GCC is doing is correct in that it outputs the byte/word/dword
> > correctly for -masm=intel.
> But why for -masm=intel and not for -masm=att (the default)?

Because that is how the constraint works.  In intel style, size prefix is part
of the memory and not the instruction.  That is mov with the size being in the
operand vs mov[lwqb] which says the size.