[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] APM support doesn't compile with binutils
    > In short:
    > push %ds : legal, should default to 32-bit mode, no override

    Does esp really change by 4 with opcode "0x1e" or "0x661e"?

    > pushl %ds : legal, 32-bit, no override
    > pushw %ds : legal, 16-bit, operand size override
    > pushb %ds : illegal
    > mov %ds,%eax : legal, should default to 32-bit mode, no override

    FYI, binutils doesn't allow it. I can fix it in But according to Intel, the 2 high order bytes
    may be undefined in eax. I decide not to change it unless
    it is absolutely necessary.

    > mov %ds,%ax : if gas notices that "%ax" is 16-bit it would be great.

    Yes, it does.

    > movw %ds,%ax : 16-bit, operand size override REQUIRED

    Why? binutils optimizes it out. Intel says the override

    > movl %ds,%eax : 32-bit, no override

    It is the same as "mov %ds,%eax" in

    > When moving to memory (pushw and movw to memory) the 16-bit override _may_
    > be optimized away, but as explained above it definitely may NOT be
    > optimized away when moving to a register because the behaviour is very
    > different (I don't know whether the segment checks are for 16- or 32-bit
    > entities, though, so maybe even the mov-to-memory case is different).

    Which Intel manual are you using? Mine explicitly says the 16-bit
    override is not required when moving data bewteen a segment register
    and a general purpose register.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.019 / U:26.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site