https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
Jan Beulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at suse dot com
--- Comment #3
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #5 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> This specific case came from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97257
>
> The address prefix changes the register operand in these instructions.
> (%ri
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #5)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > This specific case came from
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97257
> >
> > The address prefix changes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #7 from Jan Beulich ---
Of course, that's all fine. But it's still gcc emitting wrong code, which gas
legitimately diagnoses. You've introduced a bug into gas instead of fixing one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #7)
> Of course, that's all fine. But it's still gcc emitting wrong code, which
> gas legitimately diagnoses. You've introduced a bug into gas instead of
> fixing one.
No.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #9 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #7)
> > Of course, that's all fine. But it's still gcc emitting wrong code, which
> > gas legitimately diagnoses. You've introduc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #7)
> > > Of course, that's all fine. But it's still gcc emitting wrong code, which
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #11 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> symbol(%rip) is similar to symbol and DISP. There is no real register
> in memory operand.
I disagree - the compiler ought to emit
movdir64b foo(%ei
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #11)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > symbol(%rip) is similar to symbol and DISP. There is no real register
> > in memory operand.
>
> I disagree - the compil
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #13 from Jan Beulich ---
(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)
> > > symbol(%rip) is similar to symbol and DISP. There is no real register
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #13)
> (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)
> > > > symbol(%rip) is similar to
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #15 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #13)
> > What is needed is some sort of flag to indicate that in this specific case
> > it needs to be foo(%eip).
>
> No, we d
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26692
Bug ID: 26692
Summary: [Z80][PATCH] Small GAS code improvements
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Compo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26685
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #13)
> > > What is needed is some sort of flag to indicate that in this specific cas
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26694
Bug ID: 26694
Summary: gas x86-32: "can't handle non absolute segment in
`lcall'" (or `ljmp')
Product: binutils
Version: 2.36 (HEAD)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26694
TK Chia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||u1049321969 at caramail dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26698
Bug ID: 26698
Summary: out of bounds access in mc_unify_path
Product: binutils
Version: 2.36 (HEAD)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Componen
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26699
Bug ID: 26699
Summary: Failure to assemble aarch64 "isb sy" in LP64 Big
Endian host environment
Product: binutils
Version: 2.36 (HEAD)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
19 matches
Mail list logo
