i386-dis.c now uses MAX_OPERANDS but the operand index (op_ad) in dofloat() is not updated yet. I think it's better to fix although I don't find visible effects.
Index: i386-dis.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/opcodes/i386-dis.c,v retrieving revision 1.126 diff -u -r1.126 i386-dis.c --- i386-dis.c 23 Jun 2007 14:55:18 -0000 1.126 +++ i386-dis.c 29 Jun 2007 10:19:39 -0000 @@ -4198,7 +4198,7 @@ putop (float_mem[fp_indx], sizeflag); obufp = op_out[0]; - op_ad = 2; + op_ad = MAX_OPERANDS - 1; OP_E (float_mem_mode[fp_indx], sizeflag); return; } @@ -4220,12 +4220,12 @@ putop (dp->name, sizeflag); obufp = op_out[0]; - op_ad = 2; + op_ad = MAX_OPERANDS - 1; if (dp->op[0].rtn) (*dp->op[0].rtn) (dp->op[0].bytemode, sizeflag); obufp = op_out[1]; - op_ad = 1; + op_ad = MAX_OPERANDS - 2; if (dp->op[1].rtn) (*dp->op[1].rtn) (dp->op[1].bytemode, sizeflag); } -- Summary: improper index in dofloat() : i386-dis.c Product: binutils Version: 2.18 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: ht at inter7 dot jp CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4709 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils