[Bug target/108134] x86 Operand Modifiers documentation issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa58ff249a0e63a721ccb6d770c86523d84a212a commit r15-9473-gfa58ff249a0e63a721ccb6d770c86523d84a212a Author: liuhongt Date: Sun Apr 13 19:40:51 2025 -0700 Revert documents from r11-344-g0fec3f62b9bfc0 gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/108134 * doc/extend.texi: Remove documents from r11-344-g0fec3f62b9bfc0.
[Bug target/108134] x86 Operand Modifiers documentation issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu --- Fixed in GCC15.
[Bug target/108134] x86 Operand Modifiers documentation issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134 --- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu --- (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3) > (In reply to sandra from comment #2) > > This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I > > wondered if there might have been a patch hunk to update the example that > > didn't make it into the final commit, but that appears not to be the case. > > > > I don't feel competent enough with x86 assembly language or inline asm to > > guess at how to modify the example myself, so unless we just want to delete > > the extra operands from the table I'll have to pass on fixing this issue. > > I'll adjust the example. Look like those operand modifiers are only for internal usage in .md files, so for simplicity, I'll just remove them from extend.texi.
[Bug target/108134] x86 Operand Modifiers documentation issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu --- (In reply to sandra from comment #2) > This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I > wondered if there might have been a patch hunk to update the example that > didn't make it into the final commit, but that appears not to be the case. > > I don't feel competent enough with x86 assembly language or inline asm to > guess at how to modify the example myself, so unless we just want to delete > the extra operands from the table I'll have to pass on fixing this issue. I'll adjust the example.
[Bug target/108134] x86 Operand Modifiers documentation issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org, ||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I wondered if there might have been a patch hunk to update the example that didn't make it into the final commit, but that appears not to be the case. I don't feel competent enough with x86 assembly language or inline asm to guess at how to modify the example myself, so unless we just want to delete the extra operands from the table I'll have to pass on fixing this issue.
[Bug target/108134] x86 Operand Modifiers documentation issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-12-15 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Target||x86_64-linux-gnu Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|A description bug for |x86 Operand Modifiers |Extended Asm document |documentation issue Component|c |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Confirmed.
