On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:50:14PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> As ICC generates the same assembly on the instructions:
> >> mov eax, DWORD PTR k1[rip]
> >> ...
> >> mov eax, DWORD PTR xmm0[rip]
> >> I think either the intel syntax spec is faulty, or gas is buggy and shoul
>>> On 10.04.18 at 08:42, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:50:14PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> As ICC generates the same assembly on the instructions:
>> >> mov eax, DWORD PTR k1[rip]
>> >> ...
>> >> mov eax, DWORD PTR xmm0[rip]
>> >> I think either the intel syntax
>>> "H.J. Lu" 04/09/18 9:09 PM >>>
>On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> BTW, -masm=intel seems to be in quite bad shape even in the assembler, in
>> various testcases I'm getting errors like on the following reduced one:
>> int k1, xmm0;
>> int foo (void) { return k1; }
>> in
Hi!
I've tested make check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32/-masm=intel,-m64/-masm=intel\} i386.exp
vect.exp'
testing and looked solely at assembly Error: (there are many scan-assembler*
directives that just fail, and some tests use e.g. only att inline asm
etc.).
The following patch
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've tested make check-gcc
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32/-masm=intel,-m64/-masm=intel\}
> i386.exp vect.exp'
> testing and looked solely at assembly Error: (there are many scan-assembler*
> directives that just fail, and
