RE: Inconsistent usage on onebyte_modrm and twobyte_modrm table in x86 disassembler and gdb?

["Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@intel.com>]

Hi Jan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 2:20 PM
> To: Schimpe, Christina <christina.schimpe@intel.com>
> Cc: Jiang, Haochen <haochen.jiang@intel.com>; Binutils
> <binutils@sourceware.org>; gdb-patches@sourceware.org; H.J.Lu
> <hjl.tools@gmail.com>; Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>; Tom de
> Vries <tdevries@suse.de>; Gerlicher, Klaus <klaus.gerlicher@intel.com>; Sam
> James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Subject: Re: Inconsistent usage on onebyte_modrm and twobyte_modrm table
> in x86 disassembler and gdb?
> 
> On 27.08.2025 12:32, Schimpe, Christina wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for working on this. I have followed this thread and also discussed
> this with Klaus a bit.
> > I still wonder, would it make sense to align the logic in x86 disassembler and
> gdb ?
> 
> Well, fundamentally a function like amd64_get_insn_details() should live in the
> disassembler (library). Just that, from all I know, the disassembler isn't set up at
> all to hand out that kind of information. It would take quite a bit of re-org to
> allow that to effectively be a byproduct (as it ought to be, imo).

I agree, that sounds like the optimal solution and I absolutely understand your concern here.

Thanks for the clarification,

Christina
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Sean Fennelly, Jeffrey Schneiderman, Tiffany Doon Silva
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928