On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:13:49AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> We are expecting address to be 0x1001 - 1 == 0x1000. But, what we get >> >> is 0x1000 + 0xffffffff, not 0x1000 since 0x67 address prefix only applies >> >> to >> >> base register to zero-extend 0xffffffff to 64bit. >> > >> > I would call this a bug in the specification - I guess that >> > 0x1001(%eax) works correctly. >> >> This is how hardware works. > > Do you really need to use addr32 prefixes for the direct TLS seg refs? > Without that the addresses will be sign-extended from the 32-bit immediate > (which is used in LP64 x86_64 code too) and everything will work fine, won't > it? >
32bit immediate is OK. The problem is fs:(32bit register). -- H.J.
