On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 06:20:49PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:01 PM Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On 6/17/25 07:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > I don't really see how this is that useful. That said, f a bug fix or > > > feature used encls mnemonic, I'd had no problems with acking it. > > > > It's not _that_ useful. > > > > But old assemblers that we still want to use *NEVER* have support for > > newfanlged instructions, so we always add new instructions with ".byte". > > Then, a few years down the road when we've moved to just old assemblers > > instead of super old assemblers, we move to the real instruction names. > > That, and the code becomes self-documenting. You don't have to scratch > your head what the .byte stream represents when reading assembly.
I hear you but I doubt that here looking into the code in detail and not being aware of ENCLS opcode would be unlikely :-) That said, I'm cool with applying the patch to tip. > > Uros. BR, Jarkko
