Fwd: Re: [FPC 0034456]: r40027 breaks build
(too old to reply)
J. Gareth Moreton
2018-10-25 07:09:22 UTC
Accidentally sent to just Pierre.

----- Original Message ---
From: J. Gareth Moreton
To: "Pierre Muller"
Sent: Thu 25/10/18 07:14
Subject: Fwd: Re: [FPC
0034456]: r40027 breaks build
Hi Pierre,
I realised afterwads that my additions to
compiler/x86/x86ins.dat were
incorrect, as the far-call version of RET
is, by default, 32-bit even on
64-bit platforms, whereas the near-call
version is 64-bit, so adding
NOX86_64 was wrong.  I corrected the

I did wonder about whether adding 64-bit
support was correct or not. 
Thanks for checking that.  The bug report
was set to "fixed" since that's
the default option when I select
"resolved".  Is there a better option to
select when submitting a patch?


On Thu 25/10/18 07:53 , Pierre Muller
***@freepascal.org sent:
Hi all,

sorry about this ...

This s completely my fault,
I forgot that the list of instructions
is not the same for i8086, i386 and
x86_64 ...

I just committed revision 40028, that
fixes the compilation failure.

I would need some advices on the notes
added by J. Gareth Moreton.

Hi Gareth,

I have a few comments on your notes on
that bug report:

First, let me thank you for the fast
reaction to the bug report,
but I think that your patch proposal is
not correct,
because as_i386_wasm is a i386 specific
assembler, and thus
adding code to handle x86_64 versions of
the same instruction is useless
as long as Watcom assembler does not
support 64-bit instruction.

Even if the would later, we would add a
new as_x86_64_wasm assembler id
for this.

Second, I have no idea about the
correctnes of your patch related
to x86ins.dat

Index: compiler/x86/x86ins.dat
--- compiler/x86/x86ins.dat (revision
+++ compiler/x86/x86ins.dat (working
@@ -1754,8 +1754,8 @@

-void 3251xCB 386
-imm 3251xCA30 386,SW
+void 3251xCB 386,NOX86_64
+imm 3251xCA30 386,SW,NOX86_64


I have no idea if this instruction might
be valid for embedded
target when trying to switch between 32
and 64 bit code...

Can someone else from core team please
comment on that part?

Third, I do not understand why you
changed the bug status to 'fixed'.
Shouldn't we wait until a fix has been
committed to the relevant branch to
change the
bug report status to 'fixed'?

I did re-open and changed it back to
fixed, adding reference to commit



fpc-devel maillist - fpc-***@lists.freepascal.org