Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] Support APX GPR32 with rex2 prefix

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 06.12.2023 13:43, Cui, Lili wrote:
>> On 05.12.2023 14:31, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>> On 24.11.2023 08:02, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>>> +	#All opcodes in the row 0x7* prefixed REX2 are illegal.
>>>>
>>>> This also covers map 1 row 8, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I didn't find 0xf8* in opcode table.
>>
>> Assuming (again) you mean 0x0f 0x8*, how did you not find it? Or wait,
>> depends on what "opcode table" here means: The manual's or opcodes/i386-
>> opc.tbl? The latter of course doesn't have them, as they're ...
>>
>>>>> +	{rex2} jo     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jno    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jb     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jae    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} je     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jne    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jbe    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} ja     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} js     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jns    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jp     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jnp    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jl     .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jge    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jle    .+2-0x70
>>>>> +	{rex2} jg     .+2-0x70
>>
>> ... the disp32/disp16 forms of these branches, which are created only during
>> relaxation.
>>
> 
> Oh,  I see,  I found them in sdm and added testcase for them.
> 
>         #All opcodes in the row 0x8* (map1) prefixed REX2 are illegal.
>         {rex2} jo     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jno    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jb     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jae    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} je     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jne    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jbe    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} ja     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} js     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jns    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jp     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jnp    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jl     .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jge    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jle    .+6+0x90909090
>         {rex2} jg     .+6+0x90909090

I don't mind the addition, but I don't think this actually tests anything that
the other block didn't already test. Hence why I suggested to merely update
the comment there.

Jan