Re: [Nasm-devel] NASM 2.11rc2

[anonymous c. <nas...@us...>]

>>>> The newly added "[foo,bar]" syntax seems to be giving
>>>> me trouble with some existing source code. I stand by
>>>> what I said before -- I would like to see it gone, in favor
>>>> of just the traditional comma-less "[foo+bar]" syntax.
>>>
>>> Could you give an example, perhaps?
>>
>> I haven't had a chance yet to track it down -- all I know
>> for now is that something fails as soon as that change
>> is in the tree.
>
> We'd really like something concrete here... it is almost impossible to
> judge the importance of this without seeing something.

After a lot of digging, I narrowed down the first problem.

Here is an abstract example:

| 1                                  bits 32
| 2
| 3                                  %define smac2(x,y)   x,y
| 4                                  %define smac3(x,y,z) x,y,z
| 5
| 6 00000000 0F1A043E                bndldx smac2(bnd0,[esi+edi])
| 7 00000004 0F1A043E                bndldx smac3(bnd0,[esi,edi])	;
requires 3-arg smac
| 8 00000008 0F1A043E                bndldx smac2(bnd0,{[esi,edi]})	;
 or explicit {...}

Note that I said "first problem"... because even with that
one "addressed" I am still seeing some other problem. I
do not yet know what is causing that one though -- more
work will be required.

I really see no good reason at all for the comma syntax.

Oh, and while we are at the topic of how painful MPX is,
you need to preclude rIP-relative addressing for BNDMK,
as well as BNDLDX and BNDSTX -- the spec says #UD.

Which really ruins the whole prior NOP behavior too.  :-(