From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 89246 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2017 16:41:55 -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 89235 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2017 16:41:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-oi0-f51.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f51.google.com) (209.85.218.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:41:53 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f69so6542729oig.10 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:41:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=imapcgoR5vRyhthM1HFPbs3Mr9+Ebktf+BpC1eaMbiA=; b=mFdE4SDi+xz90Z/jzUKsFCpB1Dq2qo0jm/wU7cxQW3EG68xhCpeBb4Jx5T99+Tk+n2 AGz1EEpCDw3fYZLOUIFZRGm53Ez5TvF5U1Ujm7eLQ1DTO0Uv1or4mUjD87Vll39Vsuog GgETX2tFcYCfMPOEYXFsve3apAFOFM4dXrGbQFRcc7GNJlZ99nIkm7tT5tKaZ7MaxB61 bN734YbbEl3Jpj+0WehcHenUgXMGlXVfXR/sDfghQbFwPh8hK0FV59zcA+4VpYJ/jjxH he2jUlPEj5oETXgBYoQtufoWsyfcMwJAJaJwTrfR7ipCDo6LV9NIlpuA5UJLDF+0hwr7 5iQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJOv4e9/ofcq9eo3JFQbZDrRYW5B9mjxvlqwTtRIxaaKf7UwI+P mrFSjXES2Sh1TJSWXt4LkNVQdsL5GjuFg44geyE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov11Saz3epjvcteo61fXa/uUkXjELHHEfIAL6fl2ucdchkO48hfQxMfcdBIp5nS3v5kasnNakyWsqY2evFx8Aw= X-Received: by 10.202.205.131 with SMTP id d125mr7635914oig.250.1513356111786; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:41:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.151.42 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:41:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5A33FA090200007800121A05@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> References: <5A33A9D802000078001979BE@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <5A33B34602000078001979F9@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <5A33F6DC02000078001219E0@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <5A33FA090200007800121A05@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: fold RegXMM/RegYMM/RegZMM into RegSIMD To: Jan Beulich Cc: Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> "H.J. Lu" 12/15/17 5:28 PM >>> >>On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> "H.J. Lu" 12/15/17 1:50 PM >>> >>>>On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> @@ -5930,20 +5958,6 @@ finalize_imm (void) >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static int >>>>> -bad_implicit_operand (int xmm) >>>>> -{ >>>>> - const char *ireg = xmm ? "xmm0" : "ymm0"; >>>>> - >>>>> - if (intel_syntax) >>>>> - as_bad (_("the last operand of `%s' must be `%s%s'"), >>>>> - i.tm.name, register_prefix, ireg); >>>>> - else >>>>> - as_bad (_("the first operand of `%s' must be `%s%s'"), >>>>> - i.tm.name, register_prefix, ireg); >>>>> - return 0; >>>>> -} >>>>> - >>>> >>>>Will we miss the assembly operand error checking? >>> >>> Not sure I understand what you mean. As the altered test case shows, error >>> messages are still present, just that they don't mention %xmm0 anymore. If >>> you mean something else, please explain. But keep in mind that things are >>> now more similar to GPR accumulator (i.e. %al etc) or FPU (%st(0)) handling, >>> where there is no such problem either. The template now requires %xmm0 to >>> be used. >> >>It is hard to tell what the error message is from >> >>*:[0-9]*: Error: .*blendvpd.* >> >>We used to get >> >>The last operand of .... >> >>What do we get now instead? > > "operand type mismatch for ..." iirc. I don't think it was appropriate for the > earlier more specific error message to be there in the first place - as said, this > is now and should always have been similar to e.g. FPU insns requiring %st(0) > as one of their operands, where %st(0) isn't being mentioned in the diagnostic > either afair. > Patch is OK then. Thanks. -- H.J.