From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 58643 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2020 14:10:38 -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 58624 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2020 14:10:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:e0627cd, H*f:sk:e0627cd X-HELO: mail-ot1-f68.google.com Received: from mail-ot1-f68.google.com (HELO mail-ot1-f68.google.com) (209.85.210.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:10:36 +0000 Received: by mail-ot1-f68.google.com with SMTP id w23so242019otj.4 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:10:35 -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=vFyl5deVZgGDo0xJqjQ10xbM+rGO1tER3MrcpjkWgx0=; b=W4qvGn6PIw5H1+X532aYQ6tyfGrk54N1Je7ZIJbOBruR99SeUOE2iFAelGbe92VfLm DCJbLc6JEUVmRVfgd+kYdb2oiidVLF1tlGX362BMO5Kq2JK/D6jw/ieF6F/utc8lzyQ6 77cHupiI0XjJbDZrv3t9XxDeDeKkDvJLQB3JouFRrtBWwm3Tu8eA4onYbBzLtnRhp7YG e5bO5F9aB78RCW7TcGS2Gbmb+c9mQVGvIBWmfqmXMDsFL1IzrfBBYFal4IXRBupMvZJ0 bVDZL5GTeqrysy1Ze2Z05je6rMMvPTP/JOslB52DryXGdx2/y6OG3s+Qlv7AjX/hEfHR qsQw== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200219125819.89247-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <44800dba-4b21-83b1-5b6b-5c7d59b7ac86@suse.com> In-Reply-To: From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Mark cvtpi2ps and cvtpi2pd as MMX To: Jan Beulich Cc: Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:53 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 19.02.2020 14:46, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:40 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > >> On 19.02.2020 14:14, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:04 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 19.02.2020 13:58, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c > >>>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c > >>>>> @@ -8636,7 +8636,9 @@ output_insn (void) > >>>>> x86_feature_2_used |= GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_2_X87; > >>>>> if (i.has_regmmx > >>>>> || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf77 /* emms */ > >>>>> - || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf0e /* femms */) > >>>>> + || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf0e /* femms */ > >>>>> + || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf2a /* cvtpi2ps */ > >>>>> + || i.tm.base_opcode == 0x660f2a /* cvtpi2pd */) > >>>> > >>>> While for the former I agree, the latter - as pointed out > >>>> elsewhere - does explicitly _not_ switch into MMX mode when > >>>> the source operand is in memory. > >>> > >>> They are still MMX instructions even with memory operand. > >> > >> Not exactly, see CVTPI2PD's description in the SDM. > > > > They are MMX in term of pure SSE. > > As per your suggested doc patch "pure SSE" means "not touching MMX > registers or state". This is the case for CVTPI2PD. I will exclude cvtpi2ps and cvtpi2pd explicitly. -- H.J.