From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77042 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2020 13:07:56 -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 77034 invoked by uid 89); 11 Feb 2020 13:07:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:fdc215b, H*i:sk:fdc215b X-HELO: mail-oi1-f194.google.com Received: from mail-oi1-f194.google.com (HELO mail-oi1-f194.google.com) (209.85.167.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:54 +0000 Received: by mail-oi1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d62so12657106oia.11 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 05:07:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vcl/OptJeZbJZBv3m8rT0CVG4woxn5GlrYNGLESs5xE=; b=PJKjFYC+xZrFScUC+eezE5yN8sQe+LLsCNA7Wthi48Hx8HSRkuxJIRrfaTT34DCKny fHTm41nEIsN0YM0XshOCQP3Vm2+rapT+QM8zJJkpW17zSt9JPl267vrRvD+c+/jM4Ru3 ecyNn7xEw/Z9JcAU353y6XKP9tLQxVLR/uYkGQUKIt/JVuMzMSPDym+isktaRB9fAzDf 6YpA5RXZL5JfYYVqJOJo7ZtWU7k6gKBkybU2xujH1uzzEPP3SzsGwrxDb6/irXt2kTeT nHLdUT8FuQrDYJBhw33P696NDCvl91IVN//e/+JbcljupuphRmxiJbbP+zCAYHLEMc+S E3zQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 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> In-Reply-To: From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests To: Jan Beulich Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 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. -- H.J.