This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] more x86-64 corrections


On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:50:41PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:45:58AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:08:38AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >> > Feel free to submit a patch to do what you prefer as long as it doesn't
> >> > break gcc for Intel EM64T.
> >> 
> >> Intel EM64T is unreleased hardware.  HJ, are you testing on AMD Opteron
> >
> > It is your lucky day. You can buy Intel EM64T now.
> >
> >> HW that has been released for over 1 1/2 years??  Keeping Binutils
> >> working 100% properly on released Opteron should take priority.
> >>  
> >
> > I have no ideas what you are talking about.
> 
> The question is whether your patches will work on both AMD64 and Intel
> EM64T - or just on Intel EM64T.  What are the consequences of your
> patches for the existing AMD64 CPUs?
> 

My patch reverted a portion of a previous assembler patch which breaks
gcc when optimizing for EM64T. I don't believe the assembler prior to
the patch

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-07/msg00026.html

was broken in any way, shape or form on any x86-64 CPUs when assembling
output from gcc. You can take a look at my patch:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-07/msg00320.html


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]