From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17a5be6c-a904-1405-5be1-cc4987b7d024@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOpDmKgsjLHTi-JYbSNiQst4XoNcKpbt2Qy16-7gJ-CTFw@mail.gmail.com>
On 11.02.2020 12:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:25 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some encodings are about to gain a warning - move them from test cases
>> not expecting any diagnostics to the new, dedicated ones, to allow
>> better focus on the actual changes in the subsequent patch.
>>
>> The new tests added have some wrong expectations right now, which will
>> be corrected by the next patch. The test is being added here to make
>> more visible which cases actually were wrong (and hence get changed),
>> besides demonstrating that in the vast majority of cases the subsequent
>> change doesn't alter generated code.
>>
>> gas/
>> 2020-02-XX Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
>> * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.s, testsuite/gas/i386/iamcu-1.s,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/ilp32/x86-64.s: Move ambiguous operand size
>> tests ...
>> * testsuite/gas/i386/noreg16.s, testsuite/gas/i386/noreg32.s,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/noreg64.s, testsuite/gas/i386/x86_64.s: ...
>> here.
>> * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.d, testsuite/gas/i386/i386-intel.d
>> testsuite/gas/i386/iamcu-1.d, testsuite/gas/i386/ilp32/x86-64.d,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/k1om.d, testsuite/gas/i386/l1om.d,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/noreg16.d, testsuite/gas/i386/noreg32.d,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/noreg64.d, testsuite/gas/i386/x86_64-intel.d,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/x86_64.d: Adjust expectations.
>> * testsuite/gas/i386/movx16.s, testsuite/gas/i386/movx16.l,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/movx32.s, testsuite/gas/i386/movx32.l,
>> testsuite/gas/i386/movx64.s, testsuite/gas/i386/movx64.l: New.
>> * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp: Run new tests.
>
> Please make a separate patch to address MOVSX/MOVZX.
I don't understand what you mean here. This patch simply documents the
status quo, to make it (much) easier to see what the next patch
actually adjusts. It doesn't "address" anything. If, for the purpose
of committing, you'd like to see both patches folded - fine by me. But
only then, not any earlier.
> MOVSX and MOVZX
> should take no suffixes. AT&T syntax is supported if there is no
> ambiguity. AT&T
> syntax also supports movsXY and movzXY.
Please could you clarify what specifically you'd like to see changed,
at the very least by pointing out one case each where you think I'm
moving in the wrong direction (presumably in the next patch really)?
I'm afraid your response isn't such that I can derive from it what
exactly you want.
> We should also improve MOVSX/MOVZX documentation.
Probably, but not here and now.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-11 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-11 10:23 [PATCH v5 0/5] x86: operand size handling improvements Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 10:25 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] x86: also disallow non-byte/-word registers with byte/word suffix Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:27 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 10:25 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] x86: replace adhoc (partly wrong) ambiguous operand checking for MOVSX/MOVZX Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 10:25 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:43 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 11:55 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2020-02-11 12:20 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 12:58 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 13:02 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 13:04 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 13:07 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 16:45 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 17:04 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 20:12 ` [PATCH] x86: Remove movsx/movzx with memory operand from AT&T syntax H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 23:34 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 23:52 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-12 3:19 ` [PATCH] x86: Remove movsx/movzx with 16/32-bit " H.J. Lu
2020-02-12 9:19 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 10:26 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] x86: correct VFPCLASSP{S,D} operand size handling Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:50 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 12:49 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 12:56 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-11 10:27 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] x86-64: Intel64 adjustments for insns dealing with far pointers Jan Beulich
2020-02-11 11:53 ` H.J. Lu
2020-02-12 8:11 ` Jan Beulich
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=17a5be6c-a904-1405-5be1-cc4987b7d024@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).