[Bug gas/21874] x86: Multiple segment registers in the address are not detected with -masm=intel

[jbeulich at novell dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21874

--- Comment #15 from Jan Beulich <jbeulich at novell dot com> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #11)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> > > Do you have a real example?
> > 
> > No, I don't. But I don't assume you have a real example of someone having
> > used something like fs:foo:[ebx] either, to support your original change.
> > The reporter's example, as he states, did not result in bad code being
> > generated (and for that case accepting the code was the intended behavior).
> 
> Someone bothered enough to open a bug report with a testcase.  That is
> good enough for me.

Do you realize that this doesn't address my comment at all? Someone _claiming_
that an example provided is bad doesn't mean it is bad, the more when the
generated code is still matching expectations. If I was to follow what you say,
me claiming "fs:gs:[mem]" being rejected now breaks code I'm using somewhere
would be "good enough" for you. And really that's what I did (albeit openly
admitting that I have no actual use case, but I could easily construct one),
yet you continue to refuse fixing your earlier change.

The mere fact that there was a loop that you've eliminated should already have
given enough of a hint to you that at least certain redundant segment overrides
were indeed intended to be permitted. Once again, I'm perfectly fine with
invalid code (gs:foo:[mem]) to be properly rejected. I continue to consider
gs:fs:[mem] valid code, based on MASM accepting it (for whatever, perhaps
historical, reason).

Hence, as before, I only see two options here: You fix your change, or I revert
it and provide a fix which I consider correct (once I find time for doing so).
I think there's little point in me repeating this yet another time, should you
continue to reply back with unconvincing arguments.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.