Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "btslq".
Did you mean:
btsl
2013 Jul 14
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
Stephen Checkoway wrote:
> [...]
Thanks for the absolutely splendid analysis!
> For the memory, immediate form without the suffix, it seems like the options are
> 1. If the immediate value is in [0,15], use btsl/btrl since it saves a byte, otherwise error;
> 2. Follow both gas's behavior and the Solaris assembler manual Jim Grosbach linked to which stated that unsuffixed
2013 Jul 13
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
Eli Friedman wrote:
> The reason it's the right thing to do is that the mem/imm forms of
> btsw and btsl have exactly the same semantics.
The Intel documentation implies that this is the case:
> If the bit base operand specifies a memory location, it represents the address of the byte in memory that contains the bit base (bit 0 of the specified byte) of the bit string (see Figure