From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E54B03858D20 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 16:09:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E54B03858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id h12so2198037ljg.9 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:09:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=kTYs3VqQyAyfKlpObqJlRs7U/SvOA20EZ9skiAZVAdg=; b=Zl/STF3oxrkYQnGVULMJMM308zfKn062X6BanNSj8u8mBPnBnScvb8ZF4EXlkennG6 u26WsSl17e1PR/Z/2TTNmyEYMICXP+u/p5eL8o6DFZSJeX7qr0mjFCwyJ3VNpPbiPX7K PaIDFK53jtrBRkevPqkcs6m6ggdK220bdcYVFjXhkU9fO91AmLlJe3IbeFkWG/Wm45gE nIJ2VTFfR+bkLqiW1dGYaoDp921U94dTTUroId3poDqYii7TvePj9YE41eHSRwcp5TTO R68Hjc7PdDbnuVFt9M9ee3TAvg7bWjNua12H3dTG3ZzzTY5Ss78K85FjLPLQgObBD3ww XsHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=kTYs3VqQyAyfKlpObqJlRs7U/SvOA20EZ9skiAZVAdg=; b=rjHLbQZ5nilEZUTaFJ56nxbASvGeXJ4zpOO5tnnL72QY2maxnDJB9XmWmfPsOvjfqT ZrQzM8wZrioRtiCv4DBzKbEcV837a1qYeFJ2h5x3Ethti2MDvisf/tOYAjkD/Qk1t5QU p8UtkawYlsApTY0Frhac++/vGN0anD850oEqvETNrFNPglM/MVU9TzB7hLOipUrCuzS4 s9p7tAZ5jKzxbFNrbGL9WlPTJLlN7ddAMQCSxhfCaBYOyl+QWRnwOFrGJnJZUeFsJOpY wisCQOy7BZ2LN9ROq3cuxu9gIv05HrQ39ex8hSU/OpSN5MjOEhYA68E2YFPALGgibSK8 I5Vw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf23wU5cpj9aFerHrBSK1UuLmurN9QZzjP4345Y79XhxL2Nt59Sb YPvYEw9HHZn52lR68feDfhQsIuijZo5196A9ZD8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6ms3NOH10EIjEIzHuetQfO3Zn50mePkovOhCa6eLsZotzZtF1dN0nGk+Pe6u8+ZJqWepcq0/mlXLDB1vJEp9A= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:870f:0:b0:277:2600:9d05 with SMTP id m15-20020a2e870f000000b0027726009d05mr125494lji.144.1666973343382; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221014091248.4920-1-haochen.jiang@intel.com> <20221014091248.4920-7-haochen.jiang@intel.com> <1e6a7d9c-4b14-821e-cc46-453adbe6f183@suse.com> In-Reply-To: From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:08:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] Support Intel RAO-INT To: Jan Beulich Cc: "Jiang, Haochen" , "binutils@sourceware.org" , "Kong, Lingling" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3017.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 1:40 AM Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 28.10.2022 10:31, Jiang, Haochen wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jan Beulich > >> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 4:22 PM > >> > >> On 28.10.2022 10:10, Jiang, Haochen wrote: > >>> BTW, should the suffix instruction dependent? It might be more operand > >>> related from my opinion. If that is the truth, could we just judge > >>> whether we should add them when dealing with memory operands? > >> > >> I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying/asking here. > >> In any event - whether a suffix is required indeed depends on insn operands. > >> Yet even insns with (only) GPR operands _may_ use a suffix in AT&T mode, > >> irrespective of it being derivable from those GPR operands. We actually apply > >> consistency checks between registers used and the suffix (if present). > > > > What I am saying is we could put all the suffix module out of instructions. If we > > found that are using those variable GPR operands, then to determine whether > > we should allow suffixes instead of determining at instructions. > > Once again - even with GPR operands use of suffixes is permitted (and > actually kind of mandated by the only AT&T spec I'm aware of). You > may have seen the series that I have pending to re-work some of the > suffix recognition, but that's certainly not going in the direction > you're suggesting (if I understand what you're saying; perhaps if you > gave an example it might become more clear). > The old AT&T syntax rules, which are quite vague, don't apply to new instructions. For new instructions, the suffix should be permitted and required only if it must be used to specify the operand size. -- H.J.