From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/8] x86: further re-work insn/suffix recognition to also cover MOVSX
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 08:31:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <09edefd9-3329-31cb-99e6-d19db90fa019@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOq8PvMjruZyPzd8QnO58NrP1rdX94UG46oyxH5kv1cwTg@mail.gmail.com>
On 27.10.2022 02:11, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:07 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25.10.2022 19:10, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 12:29 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> PR gas/29524
>>>>
>>>> Having templates with a suffix explicitly present has always been
>>>> quirky. After prior adjustment all that's left to also eliminate the
>>>
>>> I prefer keeping the current MOVS behavior. Please submit a new patch
>>> set without MOVS changes.
>>
>> You're kidding? If you _still_ think this patch isn't worth it despite
>> its merits, and despite it now only reducing the set of templates and
>> adjusting/extending the testsuite, without any changes to tc-i386.c you
>
> Without this change, the Pass2 change can be dropped.
No, it cannot.
Jan
>> can simply give your okay to the first 7 patches. Why would I spam the
>> list with an identical re-submission of those first 7 patches?
>>
>> Independent of that I'd like to understand the reasons for your
>> preference, in particular when considering the benefits as well as the
>> reported bug which is being fixed (and which you marked as WONTFIX for
>> a subjective reason). So far your objection was that the change
>> complicates the code. Now it actually simplifies it slightly by
>> halving the number of involved templates.
>>
>> Jan
>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-27 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-25 7:23 [PATCH v5 0/8] x86: suffix handling changes Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:24 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] x86: constify parse_insn()'s input Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:25 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] x86: introduce Pass2 insn attribute Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:30 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] " Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:26 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] x86: re-work insn/suffix recognition Jan Beulich
2022-10-27 17:21 ` H.J. Lu
2022-10-28 9:00 ` Jan Beulich
2022-10-28 16:12 ` H.J. Lu
2022-10-31 11:40 ` Jan Beulich
2022-10-31 16:59 ` H.J. Lu
2022-10-25 7:26 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] ix86: don't recognize/derive Q suffix in the common case Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:27 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] x86-64: allow HLE store of accumulator to absolute 32-bit address Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:27 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] x86: move bad-use-of-TLS-reloc check Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:28 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] x86: drop (now) stray IsString Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 7:29 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] x86: further re-work insn/suffix recognition to also cover MOVSX Jan Beulich
2022-10-25 17:10 ` H.J. Lu
2022-10-26 9:07 ` Jan Beulich
2022-10-27 0:11 ` H.J. Lu
2022-10-27 6:31 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=09edefd9-3329-31cb-99e6-d19db90fa019@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).