On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 21.12.18 at 14:55, wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> For 64-bit these should not be emitted without suffix in AT&T mode (as
> >> being ambiguous that way); the suffixes are benign for 32-bit. For
>
>>> On 21.12.18 at 14:55, wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> For 64-bit these should not be emitted without suffix in AT&T mode (as
>> being ambiguous that way); the suffixes are benign for 32-bit. For
>> consistency also omit the suffix in Intel mode for {,V}CVTSI2
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> For 64-bit these should not be emitted without suffix in AT&T mode (as
> being ambiguous that way); the suffixes are benign for 32-bit. For
> consistency also omit the suffix in Intel mode for {,V}CVTSI2SxQ.
>
> The omission has originally (pr
For 64-bit these should not be emitted without suffix in AT&T mode (as
being ambiguous that way); the suffixes are benign for 32-bit. For
consistency also omit the suffix in Intel mode for {,V}CVTSI2SxQ.
The omission has originally (prior to rev 260691) lead to wrong code
being generated for the 6
