Re: [PATCH 08/39] don't use word-size specifiers

[Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> I hate to say it, but I really think this is a step backwards in 
>> readability.  Consistency is a good thing, and with the suffixes in 
>> place we are consistent between instructions that refer to memory and 
>> instructions that refer to registers.  We also get one more check on 
>> things, where the assembler can tell the programmer he probably typoed.
>>
>> So I would prefer if we *didn't* go down this route, except for 
>> explicit unification, but that's not the case here (since the size is 
>> still explicit in the register names.)
>>
> 
> Okay, I didn't really explain what I meant very well here...
> 
> Obviously, most of your patch series is all about unification, and that 
> is a Good Thing, and thank you for doing it.  What I was trying to say 
> was that it is not obvious from just reading the patchset what changes 
> are necessary for unification, and which one are a stylistic change.  If 
> *all* the changes are unification, please just say so and disregard this 
> remark, and I'll go ahead and apply your patchset.
> 
>     -hpa
They're all about unification, but I split it for bisectability, as ingo 
many times requested (and it happened for me to agree completely with it
after a while ;-)).

So, exactly because not using size specifiers can introduce bugs here, I 
did it in a separate patch. But it all end at unification in the end.

Sorry if the intention was not explicit enough.