Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: widen applicability and use of CheckRegSize

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:35 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> First of all make operand_type_register_match() apply to all sized
> operands, i.e. in Intel Syntax also to respective memory ones. This
> addresses gas wrongly accepting certain SIMD insns where register and
> memory operand sizes should match but don't. This apparently has
> affected all templates with one memory-only operand and one or more
> register ones, both permitting at least two sizes, due to CheckRegSize
> not taking effect.
>
> Then also add CheckRegSize to a couple of non-SIMD templates matching
> that same pattern of memory-only vs register operands. This replaces
> bogus (for Intel Syntax) diagnostics referring to a wrong suffix (when
> none was used at all) by "type mismatch" ones, just like already emitted
> for insns where the template allows a register operand alongside a
> memory one at any particular position.
>
> This also is a prereq to limiting (ideally eliminating in the long run)
> suffix "derivation" in Intel Syntax mode.
>
> While making the code adjustment also flip order of checks to do the
> cheaper one first in both cases.
> ---
> CheckRegSize now firmly isn't an appropriate name anymore - perhaps we
> want to rename it to e.g. CheckSizes or CheckOperandSize (and then
> better in a prereq patch)?
>

CheckOperandSize sounds better.

-- 
H.J.