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&T mode is bad > >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assemb

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&T 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 u

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&T mode is bad > >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from > >> re

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&T 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&T 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 al