From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD2C3858D20 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:00:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6FD2C3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 6FD2C3858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708444829; cv=none; b=LQzX6VhOMj9VqL0eQwnvscPR3ZfETpCO5etWRHaG37WvSnH1/L41J0RA2LzWcezmzzB9MSh38E7yfRgytM3IhyvsImb7yrvMhGO3bh2D1EqsJJzTcfvd9Ec8yFckjFsCvI9i7ChpnL/bWS0p9+Wgj4vFQv8wQ21G18iYkxtm+1A= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708444829; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ANFLS5lb9mpLCptB3kMjqSTTgpIq0nQTias3Si0IE0M=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Date: From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=G+kCGSzI6dIR2veUf17eXwX7TkA7vVjG+Au5u7IH4mmR0rGjOGNsZQN68F/HmrFCLtImXpwKjkG6SjBMrva671cyp+dSCihIJPAhEa78WMIP+LR96x8seCP+6tk1AXX9VFVb95bDVVHQt2k04H/YaOpeET/45prMwICj0i5xby4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from knuth.suse.de (unknown [10.168.5.16]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7CF1F8A3; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:00:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708444826; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LwwiokSP85pB7TK1TSbFQabay3RwwRb9NneqmJJzOMQ=; b=wLrvcKfgdF9SimqxNJ/hvzJkIn0P1phrY9u2oRlRYBTWKOhtVEdXq8mIvvWXK544kfnpVh niLP5ncZmo0NXsU2nJdNRLg9si9aG+KJzqibrq/OXGUdlYYxYbKb+ex46K/5jQbhuG3bkf eDs8/mzV/JNIPaWWtHvuMJpDgDsQKPU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708444826; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LwwiokSP85pB7TK1TSbFQabay3RwwRb9NneqmJJzOMQ=; b=LqQUXNyCsPmn7Gr3LRkbIPXWO/MkwaT6ZEjEn9hhtXW2kT7QutaZT1kh8FFU7uqQz/CiUz QWgwqovIY544W6Cw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1708444826; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LwwiokSP85pB7TK1TSbFQabay3RwwRb9NneqmJJzOMQ=; b=wLrvcKfgdF9SimqxNJ/hvzJkIn0P1phrY9u2oRlRYBTWKOhtVEdXq8mIvvWXK544kfnpVh niLP5ncZmo0NXsU2nJdNRLg9si9aG+KJzqibrq/OXGUdlYYxYbKb+ex46K/5jQbhuG3bkf eDs8/mzV/JNIPaWWtHvuMJpDgDsQKPU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1708444826; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LwwiokSP85pB7TK1TSbFQabay3RwwRb9NneqmJJzOMQ=; b=LqQUXNyCsPmn7Gr3LRkbIPXWO/MkwaT6ZEjEn9hhtXW2kT7QutaZT1kh8FFU7uqQz/CiUz QWgwqovIY544W6Cw== Received: by knuth.suse.de (Postfix, from userid 10510) id 4BDE0331DAD; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:59:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by knuth.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A31B331DAC; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:59:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:59:26 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Matz To: Jan Beulich cc: "Cui, Lili" , "H.J. Lu" , Binutils Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/APX: respect {vex}/{vex3} In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <80e6789c-a103-247f-859a-2061b7190fe8@suse.de> References: <3098e797-3749-40ee-802c-ea8a6f63914c@suse.com> <8a7e7a43-37d4-425c-8166-6ba8b758f0f4@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.50 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[intel.com,gmail.com,sourceware.org]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[] X-Spam-Score: 1.50 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hello, On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.02.2024 11:12, Cui, Lili wrote: > >> On 18.02.2024 08:55, Cui, Lili wrote: > >>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-egpr-inval.s > >>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-egpr-inval.s > >>>> @@ -207,3 +207,13 @@ > >>>> vtestpd (%r27),%ymm6 > >>>> vtestps (%r27),%xmm6 > >>>> vtestps (%r27),%ymm6 > >>>> +# {vex} > >>>> + {vex} and %eax, %eax > >>>> + {vex} and %r8, %r8 > >>>> + {vex} and %r16, %r16 > >>>> + {vex} and %eax, %eax, %eax > >>>> + {vex} and %r8, %r8, %r8 > >>>> + {vex} and %r16, %r16, %r16 > >>>> + {vex} andn %eax, %eax, %eax > >>>> + {vex} andn %r8, %r8, %r8 > >>> > >>> These two test cases are valid. > >> > >> ... reflects exactly this fact. > >> > > > > Normally we don't put valid test cases into invalid test case file, right? > > Depends, I would say (and I think you'll find other examples). I view it as > pretty relevant here. I think the test filename should be different then, also for other cases where this is the case. That, or at least a comment next to the insns that those are _not_ invalid (referring to the .d file to see that is not self-describing). Without any other indication I'd say instructions in a file named "*inval.s" should _all_ be invalid, always. Ciao, Michael.