RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread David Laight
From: Denys Vlasenko > Sent: 03 July 2018 12:59 > > On 07/03/2018 10:46 AM, David Laight wrote: > > From: Jan Beulich > >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 > > ... > >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad > >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread David Laight
From: Denys Vlasenko > Sent: 03 July 2018 12:59 > > On 07/03/2018 10:46 AM, David Laight wrote: > > From: Jan Beulich > >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 > > ... > >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad > >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the

Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On 07/03/2018 10:46 AM, David Laight wrote: From: Jan Beulich Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 ... As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by

Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On 07/03/2018 10:46 AM, David Laight wrote: From: Jan Beulich Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 ... As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread David Laight
From: Jan Beulich > Sent: 03 July 2018 11:07 > >>> On 03.07.18 at 10:46, wrote: > > From: Jan Beulich > >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 > > ... > >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad > >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from > >>

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread David Laight
From: Jan Beulich > Sent: 03 July 2018 11:07 > >>> On 03.07.18 at 10:46, wrote: > > From: Jan Beulich > >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 > > ... > >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad > >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from > >>

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 03.07.18 at 10:46, wrote: > From: Jan Beulich >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 > ... >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from >> register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 03.07.18 at 10:46, wrote: > From: Jan Beulich >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 > ... >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from >> register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread David Laight
From: Jan Beulich > Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 ... > As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad > practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from > register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by upstream > gas in the future (mine does

RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

2018-07-03 Thread David Laight
From: Jan Beulich > Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36 ... > As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT mode is bad > practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from > register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by upstream > gas in the future (mine does