On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 06:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> - return "movabs{}\t{%1, %0|%0, %1}";
>>> + return "movabs{}\t{%1, %P0|[%P0], %1}";
>>
>>
>> The thing that's missing fro
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 06:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> - return "movabs{}\t{%1, %0|%0, %1}";
>> + return "movabs{}\t{%1, %P0|[%P0], %1}";
>
>
> The thing that's missing from this, that's present in the patch that I sent
> you off-list
On 11/10/2015 06:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
- return "movabs{}\t{%1, %0|%0, %1}";
+ return "movabs{}\t{%1, %P0|[%P0], %1}";
The thing that's missing from this, that's present in the patch that I sent you
off-list, is the thing for Intel syntax.
Would you prefer to just add that bac
Hello!
Recent AS patches introduced the above compilation failure. We have to
treat movabs operands in a special way - without %rip and inside
square bracket for -masm=intel.
Also, the patch removes dead code while at it.
2015-11-10 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_print_operand):
