https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874
--- Comment #15 from Jan Beulich <jbeulich at novell dot com> --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12) > (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #11) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10) > > > Do you have a real example? > > > > No, I don't. But I don't assume you have a real example of someone having > > used something like fs:foo:[ebx] either, to support your original change. > > The reporter's example, as he states, did not result in bad code being > > generated (and for that case accepting the code was the intended behavior). > > Someone bothered enough to open a bug report with a testcase. That is > good enough for me. Do you realize that this doesn't address my comment at all? Someone _claiming_ that an example provided is bad doesn't mean it is bad, the more when the generated code is still matching expectations. If I was to follow what you say, me claiming "fs:gs:[mem]" being rejected now breaks code I'm using somewhere would be "good enough" for you. And really that's what I did (albeit openly admitting that I have no actual use case, but I could easily construct one), yet you continue to refuse fixing your earlier change. The mere fact that there was a loop that you've eliminated should already have given enough of a hint to you that at least certain redundant segment overrides were indeed intended to be permitted. Once again, I'm perfectly fine with invalid code (gs:foo:[mem]) to be properly rejected. I continue to consider gs:fs:[mem] valid code, based on MASM accepting it (for whatever, perhaps historical, reason). Hence, as before, I only see two options here: You fix your change, or I revert it and provide a fix which I consider correct (once I find time for doing so). I think there's little point in me repeating this yet another time, should you continue to reply back with unconvincing arguments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
