search for: mul06

...hat's important is that there certainly are architectures where btr/bts are valid instructions, and they must be supported. btr/bts are certainly not invalid instructions that we're bending over backwards to support, because linux.git/gas works with them. [1]: http://web.itu.edu.tr/kesgin/mul06/intel/index.html

...here certainly are > architectures where btr/bts are valid instructions, and they must be > supported. btr/bts are certainly not invalid instructions that we're > bending over backwards to support, because linux.git/gas works with > them. > > [1]: http://web.itu.edu.tr/kesgin/mul06/intel/index.html > _ The correct answer here is "Vol 2a of the Intel Reference Manual available off of the Intel website". As far as whether or not we should support the instructions with a lack of length mnemonic, I'm going to step back away from the discussion. The Intel manual...

...t; architectures where btr/bts are valid instructions, and they must be >> supported. btr/bts are certainly not invalid instructions that we're >> bending over backwards to support, because linux.git/gas works with >> them. >> >> [1]: http://web.itu.edu.tr/kesgin/mul06/intel/index.html >> _ > > The correct answer here is "Vol 2a of the Intel Reference Manual > available off of the Intel website”. Yep, for Intel syntax that’s exactly right. > As far as whether or not we should support the instructions with a > lack of length mnemonic,...

Jim Grosbach wrote: > Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it > isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I additionally say that linux.git uses them? I wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386.

On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it >> isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. > > That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I > additionally say that linux.git uses them? > Is the

...hat's important is that there certainly are architectures where btr/bts are valid instructions, and they must be supported. btr/bts are certainly not invalid instructions that we're bending over backwards to support, because linux.git/gas works with them. [1]: http://web.itu.edu.tr/kesgin/mul06/intel/index.html _ The correct answer here is "Vol 2a of the Intel Reference Manual available off of the Intel website”. Yep, for Intel syntax that’s exactly right. As far as whether or not we should support the instructions with a lack of length mnemonic, I'm going to step back away...