https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109257
--- Comment #3 from LIU Hao <lh_mouse at 126 dot com> --- (In reply to jbeulich from comment #2) > Sure, but there's no reason for gas to not accept what MASM would. You also > don't really make clear why you think this is an issue, and hence why it > should be changed in gcc. Why not? The syntax is invalid because Intel software developer manual has no reference to such construction. The fact that MASM would accept it doesn't render it valid. > > The `foo[rip]` part is also invalid but it's a common issue for all > > addressing operands for x86_64, not specifically about jmp. > > Why's that invalid? foo[eax] and [foo+eax] have always been equivalent in > MASM, and I see no reason why this shouldn't hold for rip-relative > addressing as well. Ok that's fine, just not intuitive. I wouldn't argue on this.
