Re: [PATCH, i386][3/3] Update to match latest AVX512 spec.

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

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Ilya Tocar <tocarip.intel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> vcvtps2ph supports memory destination.  Please add AVX512F testcases
>> >>> with memory destination.
>> >>>
>> >> We already have such tests. See e. g. on lines 6883-6890 in
>> >> gas/testsuite/gas/i386/avx512f.s we have:
>> >>
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $0xab, %zmm6, (%ecx)     # AVX512F
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $0xab, %zmm6, (%ecx){%k7}        # AVX512F
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $123, %zmm6, (%ecx)      # AVX512F
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $123, %zmm6, -123456(%esp,%esi,8)        # AVX512F
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $123, %zmm6, 4064(%edx)  # AVX512F Disp8
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $123, %zmm6, 4096(%edx)  # AVX512F
>> >>         vcvtps2ph       $123, %zmm6, -4096(%edx)         # AVX512F Disp8
>> >>
>> >> Do we need additional tests?
>> >
>> > Yes, please test with memory destination for:
>> >
>> > vcvtps2ph, 3, 0x661D, None, 1, CpuAVX512F,
>> > Modrm|EVex=1|Masking=2|VexOpcode=2|VexW=1|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_lSuf|No_sSuf|No_qSuf|No_ldSuf|SAE,
>> > { Imm8, Imm8, RegZMM|RegMem }
> This variant is removed in my patch. What exactly should I test?
>>
>> Also for
>>
>> vcvtps2ph, 4, 0x661D, None, 1, CpuAVX512F,
>> Modrm|EVex=1|Masking=3|VexOpcode=2|VexW=1|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_lSuf|No_sSuf|No_qSuf|No_ldSuf|SAE,
>> { Imm8, Imm8, RegZMM, RegYMM|RegMem }
> This is reg-reg version with SAE, which is already tested on e. g.
> line 2602 in gas/testsuite/gas/i386/avx512f.s:
>
>         vcvtps2ph       $0xab, {sae}, %zmm5, %ymm6{%k7}  # AVX512F
>
> Also instruction can't have memory operand and SAE at the same time.

OK.  I checked it in for you.

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.