Apologies, it seems the correct mailing list for this question is binutils@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Of course, feel free to comment. Michael On 16 March 2012 11:19, Michael Guyver <michael.guyver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi there, > > I happened across the gas bug in which it produces the wrong opcodes > for the non-commutative FP arithmetic instructions where %st(0) is the > source register. While looking into the problem and how to avoid it, I > blogged about what I found (at > http://www.mindfruit.co.uk/2012/03/trouble-with-fsub.html). I was > wondering about the current state of play regarding the issue? > > It seems to me that there are three options for hand-assembly writers > to deal with this, either by compiling binutils with > CPPFLAGS=-DSYSV386_COMPAT (useful if you want correct instructions in > AT&T syntax in objdump), assembling with 'as' using -mmnemonic=intel > or specifying the directive .intel_mnemonic in the source. However, > it's really not clear (to me, at least) from the docs or Honiju Lu's > patches what the effects of using the last two options are, since it > appears to switch on intel syntax if you specify intel mnemonic; and > further, those flags are set equal to !SYSV386_COMPAT as well. > > I was wondering if you could elaborate on what that means for my > assembly code? If I specify .intel_mnemonic (and therefore get > .intel_syntax), have all my operands changed place? If this is > well-trodden ground, perhaps you could point me to some documentation > which would clear things up for me, please? Is it possible to have > AT&T syntax yet have "fixed" FP opcodes? > > Regards > > Michael
