binutils-gdb/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/no-plt-1g.dd
Jan Beulich 36938cabf0 x86: avoid attaching suffixes to unambiguous insns
"Unambiguous" is is in particular taking as reference the assembler,
which also accepts certain insns - despite them allowing for varying
operand size, and hence in principle being ambiguous - without any
suffix. For example, from the very beginning of the life of x86-64 I had
trouble understanding why a plain and simple RET had to be printed as
RETQ. In case someone really used the 16-bit form, RETW disambiguates
the two quite fine.
2020-07-15 08:53:55 +02:00

27 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext

#objdump: -dwrj.text
#target: x86_64-*-*
.*: +file format elf.*-x86-64.*
Disassembly of section .text:
#...
[0-9a-f]+ <check>:
+[a-f0-9]+: 48 83 ec 08 sub \$0x8,%rsp
+[a-f0-9]+: ff 15 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+call \*0x[0-9a-f]+\(%rip\) +# [0-9a-f]+ <.*>
+[a-f0-9]+: 48 3b 05 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+cmp 0x[0-9a-f]+\(%rip\),%rax +# [0-9a-f]+ <.*>
+[a-f0-9]+: 75 34 jne [0-9a-f]+ <check\+0x[0-9a-f]+>
+[a-f0-9]+: 4(0|8) 39 05 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+(rex |)cmp +%(e|r)ax,0x[0-9a-f]+\(%rip\) +# [a-f0-9]+ <.*>
+[a-f0-9]+: 75 2b jne [0-9a-f]+ <check\+0x[0-9a-f]+>
+[a-f0-9]+: 67 e8 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+addr32 call [0-9a-f]+ <func>
+[a-f0-9]+: 3d 78 56 34 12 cmp \$0x12345678,%eax
+[a-f0-9]+: 75 1e jne [0-9a-f]+ <check\+0x[0-9a-f]+>
+[a-f0-9]+: ff 15 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+call \*0x[0-9a-f]+\(%rip\) +# [0-9a-f]+ <.*>
+[a-f0-9]+: 3d 78 56 34 12 cmp \$0x12345678,%eax
+[a-f0-9]+: 75 11 jne [0-9a-f]+ <check\+0x[0-9a-f]+>
+[a-f0-9]+: 48 8d 3d ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+lea 0x[a-f0-9]+\(%rip\),%rdi +# [a-f0-9]+.*
+[a-f0-9]+: 48 83 c4 08 add \$0x8,%rsp
+[a-f0-9]+: ff 25 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+jmp \*0x[0-9a-f]+\(%rip\) +# [0-9a-f]+ <.*>
+[a-f0-9]+: ff 15 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4}[ ]+call \*0x[0-9a-f]+\(%rip\) +# [0-9a-f]+ <.*>
#pass