On 01/11/2018 08:11 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> Well they managed to break code, so this was indeed a bad decision. >> >> With that Binutils change we only report an error for code which was broken anyway. > > Well it worked, so it wasn't broken. I would just have liked this > instruction to be fixed in a backwards compatible way (e.g. warning - or > is it just a warning and my gcc flags treat them as errors?). One operand was missing. The ommitted operand was just 0 then. The instruction never did what the user expected. That nobody complained about using it that way doesn't mean it was correct. >> When writing this testcase the right thing would have been to report a Binutils bug instead of >> writing a testcase which uses an instruction which isn't part of the POP. > > Huh? > > PoP - "Control Instructions" - 10-176 - "TEST BLOCK". Even can find it > in the Pop from 2004. It wasn't in the POP the way the testcase used it - with just one operand. It was a bug in Binutils since the very beginning probably. > But anyhow, we have this fixed now. Was just wondering, why our > _working_ code suddenly broke (and now we have to use .insn to make it > compile with GCC in general) -Andreas-
