From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 71A333858C3A; Thu,  4 May 2023 04:37:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 71A333858C3A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683175040;
	bh=jJqcb9FeBbvRCWq/8hlHLjzOeb7rZelM/wLbsmfcKZA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=L9cwYvX266oy1ePy9bH99qG+V+8cVFL2Uz6NPsa5YXp8PwUn16cIHke35OjOXQhcZ
	 hwq5UF1qsfYHrOoxHqJCxCXNfU5VXVZEnJJSjC4Lsb+ByMoTXN1lrF+ENWyrqYXR4X
	 +9bq7YMxzScDNjAjDTLC8hHcvBtd7GHaY/Cdya3M=
From: "lh_mouse at 126 dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/53929] [meta-bug] -masm=intel with global symbol
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 04:37:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: assemble-failure, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: lh_mouse at 126 dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-53929-4-j77ZQlM1jc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53929-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53929-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53929

--- Comment #13 from LIU Hao <lh_mouse at 126 dot com> ---
dup notwithstanding, I think I had better copy my recommendation here for
reference:



This is how MSVC handles such names:
(https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/TonjYaxqj)

```
static int* volatile rip;
static unsigned int volatile eax;

int
get_value(void)
  {
    return rip[eax];
  }
```

MSVC outputs:
```
get_value PROC                                      ; COMDAT
        mov     ecx, DWORD PTR eax
        mov     rax, QWORD PTR rip
        mov     eax, DWORD PTR [rax+rcx*4]
        ret     0
get_value ENDP
```

GCC outputs:
```
get_value:
        mov     rdx, QWORD PTR rip[rip]
        mov     eax, DWORD PTR eax[rip]
        mov     eax, DWORD PTR [rdx+rax*4]
        ret
```

In the case of MSVC, `DWORD PTR eax` is unambiguously parsed as the label `=
eax`
and `DWORD PTR [eax]` is unambiguously parsed as the register `eax`. The
address of all labels are always relative to RIP, but it is implied, and
brackets are not written explicitly.


Maybe GCC can follow MSVC to omit the RIP register and brackets. The x86_64
memory reference syntax matches x86 with the only change in semantics of the
immediate offset (for x86_64 it is relative to the next instruction, while =
for
i686 it is absolute), but the opcode is the same.=