From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-87891-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 102669 invoked by alias); 26 May 2015 12:18:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 102660 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2015 12:18:12 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail.emea.novell.com
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail.emea.novell.com) (130.57.118.101) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 26 May 2015 12:17:46 +0000
Received: from EMEA1-MTA by mail.emea.novell.com	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:17:38 +0100
Message-Id: <5564807F020000780007DE21@mail.emea.novell.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 12:18:00 -0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: "Kirill Yukhin" <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, "Binutils" <binutils@sourceware.org>,"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Intel: accept mandated operand order for vcvt{,u}si2s{d,s}
References: <552FE0630200007800072CD0@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOomWLMwQT6R2qLr1p7_dzmwuNLsz2PEk-6tV3NTt_=24Q@mail.gmail.com> <55390A6A0200007800075263@mail.emea.novell.com> <CAMe9rOrSX3cgXCSJFsbDnKgnyNrX-Y4cYO2VL4uTrKV-O3fcCw@mail.gmail.com> <554906C70200007800076D28@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150525145555.GA9967@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <55644524020000780007DB9A@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150526112416.GC9967@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150526112416.GC9967@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2

>>> On 26.05.15 at 13:24, <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finally, (I promise, I repeat it last time) as far as SDM is not a source=
 of=20
> Intel syntax,

Which btw is something I don't really buy, for three reasons:
1) Why would it specify mnemonics (including operands) then in the
first place?
2) Other architectures explicitly use the instruction specifications as
guideline for what assemblers should accept, or even require
assemblers to behave in a certain way (see e.g. ARM ARM).
3) In the absence of any other formal definition, one ought to use
what is there instead of inventing something new.

> I see no reason to allow another order. IMO, such addition might
> even increase confusion about this non-trivial stuff.

Quite the opposite - it eliminates some confusion: Just compare

vcvtsd2ss xmm6\{k7\},xmm5,xmm4,\{rn-sae\}

and

vcvtsi2ss xmm6,xmm5,\{rn-sae\},eax

(found in the unpatched testsuite). In the former and all other
instructions (excepting the questionable ones) the rounding
specifier goes after all source operands.

Jan