From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4969 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2020 12:58:45 -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 4957 invoked by uid 89); 11 Feb 2020 12:58:44 -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=HX-Languages-Length:3563, H*f:ZsxWP0FEoQe, H*i:sk:chveVFV, H*i:CAMe9rOqSj_rV 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 12:58:43 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA57EAAC7; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:58:40 +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> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <891e9e3a-0e39-b3fd-a06a-d89bedaa8ec1@suse.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:58:00 -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/msg00185.txt.bz2 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 please also only on top of my changes, so I won't need to re-base _yet_ another time. Just to repeat my request from an earlier version: Please take the time to check what this patch does (documenting _just_ current behavior), and what the next patch changes behavior-wise. And please comment on that following patch in case you think it makes a change that it shouldn't make, i.e. in particular one which isn't in line with other similar behavior. Jan