* x86: limiting the use of No_*Suf
@ 2022-08-12 9:30 Jan Beulich
2022-08-12 13:18 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2022-08-12 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Binutils
H.J.,
since you didn't like "x86: imply all No_*Suf when none is set in a
template" I've been thinking of other ways to limit the excessive use
of these attributes. One observation is that templates with IsPrefix,
Broadcast, or Masking set always have all No_<x>Suf also set.
Therefore the latter could be dropped from those templates (improving
readability), compensated by
1) a respective adjustment to match_template(), or
2) a change to i386-gen.c, or
3) respective pre-processor macros.
Do you have any opinion on the general direction of this and, if in
favor, any preference for one of the three options?
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: limiting the use of No_*Suf
2022-08-12 9:30 x86: limiting the use of No_*Suf Jan Beulich
@ 2022-08-12 13:18 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-15 18:10 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2022-08-12 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Binutils
On 12.08.2022 11:30, Jan Beulich via Binutils wrote:
> since you didn't like "x86: imply all No_*Suf when none is set in a
> template" I've been thinking of other ways to limit the excessive use
> of these attributes. One observation is that templates with IsPrefix,
> Broadcast, or Masking set always have all No_<x>Suf also set.
> Therefore the latter could be dropped from those templates (improving
> readability), compensated by
> 1) a respective adjustment to match_template(), or
> 2) a change to i386-gen.c, or
> 3) respective pre-processor macros.
> Do you have any opinion on the general direction of this and, if in
> favor, any preference for one of the three options?
Actually I had forgotten that we already have precedent of 3), for
AddrPrefixOpReg. So perhaps this can be a hint as to further moves
in that direction ...
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: limiting the use of No_*Suf
2022-08-12 13:18 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2022-08-15 18:10 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2022-08-15 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Binutils
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 6:19 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 12.08.2022 11:30, Jan Beulich via Binutils wrote:
> > since you didn't like "x86: imply all No_*Suf when none is set in a
> > template" I've been thinking of other ways to limit the excessive use
> > of these attributes. One observation is that templates with IsPrefix,
> > Broadcast, or Masking set always have all No_<x>Suf also set.
> > Therefore the latter could be dropped from those templates (improving
> > readability), compensated by
> > 1) a respective adjustment to match_template(), or
> > 2) a change to i386-gen.c, or
> > 3) respective pre-processor macros.
> > Do you have any opinion on the general direction of this and, if in
> > favor, any preference for one of the three options?
>
> Actually I had forgotten that we already have precedent of 3), for
> AddrPrefixOpReg. So perhaps this can be a hint as to further moves
> in that direction ...
>
> Jan
I prefer #3.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-15 18:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-08-12 9:30 x86: limiting the use of No_*Suf Jan Beulich
2022-08-12 13:18 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-15 18:10 ` H.J. Lu
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).