Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.arch Subject: Re: Assembling span-dependent instructions Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:52:40 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 15 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <22-07-052@comp.compilers> References: <22-07-049@comp.compilers> Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="7304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: code, question Posted-Date: 27 Jul 2022 19:00:36 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3139 comp.arch:76933 On 2022-07-27, Anton Ertl wrote: > However, one can also construct cases where making the code larger can > reduce the minimum size of the immediate operand, e.g.: > > foo: > movl foo+133-bar(%rdi),%eax > bar: That's weird; what is accessed this way, relative to the code, and does it occur in compiler output? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal