--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-02-07 17:51 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Regarding comment #2 and #3, I think the purpose of noprefix is to *allow*
> source to omit the "%" prefix, ie. make the prefix optional. I don't think it
> should force you to omit the pref
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-02-07
17:29 ---
Regarding comment #2 and #3, I think the purpose of noprefix is to *allow*
source to omit the "%" prefix, ie. make the prefix optional. I don't think it
should force you to omit the prefix, especially in
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-02-07 17:19 ---
I saw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid]$ cat foo.s
.intel_syntax noprefix
mov rax,oword ptr rbx
[EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid]$ gcc -c foo.s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid]$ objdump -d foo.o
foo.o: file format el
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-02-07 15:10 ---
I would vote for not allowing any prefix when noprefix is specified for
both Intel and AT&T modes.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3993
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You ar
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2007-02-07 15:03
---
The first case must be accepted, since masm allows this as long as the pointer
width specified matches the register width. masm fails when the latter isn't
true, while gas emit a warning only. I don't think that
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-02-07 14:24 ---
Also this one:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] intel]$ cat bar.s
.intel_syntax noprefix
mov %rax, rax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] intel]$ gcc -c bar.s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] intel]$ objdump -d bar.o
bar.o: file format elf64-x
