[PATCH v2 02/14] [x86] Add basic support for .code16

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 22:31 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> The reason for the initial objection was that the choosen mapping makes
> it hard to ensure that all places copy the bits correctly. As such, both
> bits 0 is a bad choice for a valid mode. 

Actually, on further reflection this statement bothers me. I have made
no attempt to ensure that *individual* bits are copied correctly in "all
places". Or indeed any places. Should I have done? Did I miss something?

Especially with the PR18303 fix, we do store the *entire* set of feature
bits for later use during relaxation. But I don't see why your
above-stated concern would be relevant to that.

We *already* had a valid mode indicated by the In64BitMode feature bit
being set to zero, and that seemed to be OK. What's different about
having two of them?

-- 
dwmw2

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140105/140d694c/attachment.bin>