Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests

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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:45 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 11.02.2020 14:07, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11.02.2020 14:01, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11.02.2020 13:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:55 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11.02.2020 12:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:25 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> 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  <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>         * 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.
>
> I'm confused. What you want to deal with is - afaict - orthogonal to
> what the next patch in the series here does.
>

You will see what I mean when I post my patch for review.

-- 
H.J.