From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10650 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2020 16:45:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10571 invoked by uid 89); 11 Feb 2020 16:45:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:x6Js0c-, H*MI:sk:x6Js0c-, H*i:sk:x6Js0c-, H*i:JN2d3EQz X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:45:46 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4569C69D88; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:45:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" References: <1e1b8eba-93ff-39ed-460a-a922d12af27e@suse.com> <74b85fa8-3b1a-d673-d26e-7baaadc69ee6@suse.com> <17a5be6c-a904-1405-5be1-cc4987b7d024@suse.com> <891e9e3a-0e39-b3fd-a06a-d89bedaa8ec1@suse.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <416bb4a2-c02f-7591-7aa1-55874844fc39@suse.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 On 11.02.2020 14:07, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:04 AM Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> On 11.02.2020 14:01, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.02.2020 13:19, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:55 AM Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11.02.2020 12:42, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:25 AM Jan Beulich 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * 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 support >>>>> >>>>> movsx %ax, %ecx >>>>> movzx %ax, %ecx >>>>> movswl %ax, %ecx >>>>> movzwl %ax, %ecx >>>>> >>>>> We disallow >>>>> >>>>> movsxw %ax, %ecx >>>>> movzxw %ax, %ecx >>>> >>>> We don't (as this patch demonstrates, along with pre-existing tests, >>>> unless you mean once again to have an inconsistency between insns >>>> with all register operands and similar ones with e memory source), >>>> and if you want it to be this way, then please do so yourself, but >>> >>> I will do it. >>> >>>> please also only on top of my changes, so I won't need to re-base >>> >>> Which changes of yours are you referring to? >> >> This patch and the subsequent one. >> > > Both changes won't be necessary after my changes. I'm confused. What you want to deal with is - afaict - orthogonal to what the next patch in the series here does. Jan