From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/Intel: restrict suffix derivation
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:23:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOpM9R-85tYukU7Jzb3dEK8T=g5YgcMP7L4n4bBWusss3g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee7070db-78ac-a478-9aca-96daf266d954@suse.com>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:20 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.08.2022 16:46, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:08 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17.08.2022 21:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> While in some cases deriving an AT&T-style suffix from an Intel syntax
> >>>> memory operand size specifier is necessary, in many cases this is not
> >>>> only pointless, but has led to the introduction of various workarounds:
> >>>> Excessive use of IgnoreSize and NoRex64 as well as the ToDword and
> >>>> ToQword attributes. Suppress suffix derivation when we can clearly tell
> >>>> that the memory operand's size isn't going to be needed to infer the
> >>>> possible need for the low byte/word opcode bit or an operand size prefix
> >>>> (0x66 or REX.W).
> >>>>
> >>>> As a result ToDword and ToQword can be dropped entirely, plus a fair
> >>>> number of IgnoreSize and NoRex64 can also be got rid of. Note that
> >>>> IgnoreSize needs to remain on legacy encoded SIMD insns with GPR
> >>>> operand, to avoid emitting an operand size prefix in 16-bit mode. (Since
> >>>> 16-bit code using SIMD insns isn't well tested, clone an existing
> >>>> testcase just enough to cover a few insns which are potentially
> >>>> problematic but are being touched here.)
> >>>>
> >>>> As a side effect of folding the VCVT{,T}S{S,D,H}2SI templates,
> >>>> VCVT{,T}SH2SI will now allow L and Q suffixes, consistent with
> >>>> VCVT{,T}S{S,D}2SI. All of these remain inconsistent with their 2USI
> >>>> counterparts (which I think should also be corrected, but perhaps better
> >>>> in a separate change).
> >>>
> >>> I don't think allowing more unnecessary L and Q suffixes for AVX
> >>> instructions is desirable. I prefer not to allow unnecessary L and
> >>> Q suffixes in folded entries. We can add special entries to allow
> >>> the existing instructions with suffixes.
> >>
> >> I think we've been there before, and I continue to think that we should
> >> be consistent throughout the entire ISA in allowing suffixes when GPRs
> >> or their equivalent memory operands are involved. That's in the spirit
> >> of the original AT&T syntax intentions, after all. I have to admit that
> >> I find it particularly worrying that you suggest to introduce new
> >> templates, when the overall / long term goal is to reduce the set, to
> >> keep it manageable in spite of all the new additions that yer yet to
> >> come.
> >>
> >> As pointed out elsewhere, any inconsistencies here make it harder for
> >> people to write e.g. heavily macro-ized code. Similarly it can result
> >> in surprises when cloning existing code to deal with new extensions.
> >>
> >
> > Will it work without unnecessary suffixes?
>
> I'm afraid I can only guess at what "it" means in your reply. Of course
> things will work for people who have never used what you call
> "unnecessary" prefixes. But there are other people who believe that the
> spirit of AT&T syntax is to put suffixes everywhere where multiple
> operand sizes are possible, and where the suffix allows to distinguish
In glibc, integer instructions without suffixes are used to support different
vector sizes.
> them. One possible reason for that could be to have the re-assurance of
> the assembler pointing out mismatches between suffix and operand(s).
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-19 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-16 7:27 [PATCH 0/7] x86: suffix handling changes Jan Beulich
2022-08-16 7:30 ` [PATCH 1/7] x86/Intel: restrict suffix derivation Jan Beulich
2022-08-17 19:19 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-18 6:07 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-18 14:46 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-19 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-19 14:23 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2022-08-19 14:49 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-19 17:00 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-22 9:34 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-22 14:38 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-16 7:30 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86: insert "no error" enumerator in i386_error enumeration Jan Beulich
2022-08-17 19:19 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-16 7:31 ` [PATCH 3/7] x86: move / quiesce pre-386 non-16-bit warning Jan Beulich
2022-08-17 19:21 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-18 7:21 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-18 15:30 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-19 6:13 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-19 14:18 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-16 7:32 ` [PATCH 4/7] x86: improve match_template()'s diagnostics Jan Beulich
2022-08-17 20:24 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-18 6:14 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-18 14:51 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-16 7:32 ` [PATCH 5/7] x86: re-work insn/suffix recognition Jan Beulich
2022-08-17 20:29 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-18 6:24 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-18 15:14 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-19 8:28 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-23 2:00 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-26 9:26 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-26 18:46 ` H.J. Lu
2022-09-06 6:40 ` Jan Beulich
2022-09-06 21:53 ` H.J. Lu
2022-09-07 7:17 ` Jan Beulich
2022-09-26 23:52 ` H.J. Lu
2022-09-28 12:49 ` Jan Beulich
2022-09-28 19:33 ` H.J. Lu
2022-09-29 8:08 ` Jan Beulich
2022-09-29 16:00 ` H.J. Lu
2022-09-29 16:06 ` Jan Beulich
2022-09-29 16:20 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-16 7:33 ` [PATCH 6/7] x86-64: further re-work insn/suffix recognition to also cover MOVSL Jan Beulich
2022-08-16 7:34 ` [PATCH 7/7] ix86: don't recognize/derive Q suffix in the common case Jan Beulich
2022-08-17 20:36 ` H.J. Lu
2022-08-18 6:29 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMe9rOpM9R-85tYukU7Jzb3dEK8T=g5YgcMP7L4n4bBWusss3g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).