From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20776 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2013 16:19:19 -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 20767 invoked by uid 89); 8 Oct 2013 16:19:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f177.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f177.google.com) (209.85.214.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:19:16 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wm4so627968obc.8 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.17.136 with SMTP id o8mr1799075oed.7.1381249154551; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.110.15 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5254485102000078000F9B47@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <5254349502000078000F9A3D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <525435E002000078000F9A55@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <52543F7202000078000F9B07@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5254485102000078000F9B47@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jan Beulich Cc: kirill.yukhin@intel.com, Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.10.13 at 17:33, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 08.10.13 at 17:16, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx assign special meaning to base and index >>>>> registers, and hence silently swapping the registers should be >>>>> suppressed. >>>>> >>>>> gas/ >>>>> 2013-10-08 Jan Beulich >>>>> >>>>> * tc-i386.c (i386_intel_simplify_register): Suppress base/index >>>>> swapping for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx. >>>>> >>>>> --- 2013-10-07/gas/config/tc-i386-intel.c >>>>> +++ 2013-10-07/gas/config/tc-i386-intel.c >>>>> @@ -291,6 +291,8 @@ i386_intel_simplify_register (expression >>>>> else if (!intel_state.index) >>>>> { >>>>> if (intel_state.in_scale >>>>> + || current_templates->start->base_opcode == 0xf30f1b /* bndmk */ >>>>> + || (current_templates->start->base_opcode & ~1) == 0x0f1a /* >> bnd{ld,st}x */ >>>>> || i386_regtab[reg_num].reg_type.bitfield.baseindex) >>>>> intel_state.index = i386_regtab + reg_num; >>>>> else >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> We need a testcase for this. >>> >>> Which is included in patch 1! >> >> Does that mean I got "make check" failure with patch 1 applied? >> A patch shouldn't introduce a "make check" failure and a testcase >> should be together with the change. > > Both 0/6 and 1/6 mentioned this quite clearly. And no, with how > badly the MPX tests were written (referring to other badly written > ones would at best be a lame excuse), I don't think it's appropriate > for you to ask that I now go back and disentangle all the various > changes to those test cases. You shouldn't have approved/ > committed such non-extensible test cases in the first place. > I prefer a testcase together with the corresponding change, instead of a jumbo testcase patch. I also don't agree every MPX change you proposed. If it makes it easier to write testcases, you can use a separate testcase file for each change. Thanks. -- H.J.