[PATCH v2] X86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
artagnon at gmail.com
Sat Jul 20 14:31:12 PDT 2013
Stephen Checkoway wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I'd favour a btl/btq choice combined with an
>> error for > 63 (we don't need to include btw, since btl is more
>> compact and does the same job; it's just there to mess with our
>> plans). It avoids possibly decidedly non-obvious memory operand
>> fiddling but does what most people would expect for as long as
> That also seems fine since it leads to behavior that is unlikely to surprise the user and is unlikely to have an effect that's different from what the user wanted.
So, this is the alternative that everyone can agree on? Isn't the
q-suffix invalid on 32-bit architectures though?
More information about the llvm-commits