>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> 04/09/18 9:09 PM >>> >On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> BTW, -masm=intel seems to be in quite bad shape even in the assembler, in >> various testcases I'm getting errors like on the following reduced one: >> int k1, xmm0; >> int foo (void) { return k1; } >> int bar (void) { return xmm0; } >> gcc -masm=intel -O2 >> /tmp/cch0mo1K.s: Assembler messages: >> /tmp/cch0mo1K.s:10: Error: invalid use of register >> /tmp/cch0mo1K.s:21: Error: invalid use of register >> As ICC generates the same assembly on the instructions: >> mov eax, DWORD PTR k1[rip] >> ... >> mov eax, DWORD PTR xmm0[rip] >> I think either the intel syntax spec is faulty, or gas is buggy and should >> figure out that after *WORD PTR and before [ there is symbol rather than >> register name. Some testcases e.g. have k1 as function name and that >> results in other asm errors (about .size directive). > >How does Intel syntax support symbols like eax, k1 and xmm0 with >".intel_syntax noprefix"?
I've noticed this problem about two weeks ago as well, and have a patch mostly ready (but need to get around to both produce a proper testcase and regression test the whole thing); that won't be until in a couple of weeks time, though - if you think this is needed earlier, I can hand you the fragments I have. As an aside - you realize this isn't an Intel syntax only issue, as "noprefix" can as well be specified with .att_syntax. I should note though that the fix won't go as far a Jakub suggests: Context doesn't matter for recognizing whether a symbol is a register. For something like the above to compile, .arch would need to be used to disable the respective register groups (e.g. .arch .noavx512f to make k1 an ordinary symbol). Jan