RE: [PATCH 06/10] Support Intel RAO-INT

["Jiang, Haochen" <haochen.jiang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 4:57 PM
> To: Jiang, Haochen <haochen.jiang@intel.com>
> Cc: hjl.tools@gmail.com; binutils@sourceware.org; Kong, Lingling
> <lingling.kong@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] Support Intel RAO-INT
> 
> On 26.10.2022 07:16, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:01 PM
> >>
> >> On 24.10.2022 07:56, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 10:38 PM
> >>>>
> >>>> On 14.10.2022 11:12, Haochen Jiang wrote:
> >>>>> +aadd, 0xf38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
> >>>>>
> >>
> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
> >>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
> >>>>> +aand, 0x660f38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
> >>>>>
> >>
> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
> >>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
> >>>>> +aor, 0xf20f38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
> >>>>>
> >>
> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
> >>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
> >>>>> +axor, 0xf30f38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
> >>>>>
> >>
> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
> >>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
> >>>>
> >>>> Why IgnoreSize? Instead I think you need CheckRegSize (assuming it
> does
> >>>> enough for Intel syntax memory operands - please double check; if not
> >> this will
> >>>> need fixing).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> For table, we aligned with CMPccXADD and added No_lSuf and No_qSuf
> >> since
> >>> the suffixes are not required.
> >>
> >> Which, as said, I consider wrong both here and there.
> >
> > I still agree with H.J.. Also I suppose the previous usage of suffixes are quite
> > messy and we should not stick on the confusing code.
> >
> > Keeping consistent with SPEC from now on to avoid confusion on that
> might
> > be a better solution for future.
> 
> Same question to you then: Which spec? As said in reply to H.J., the only
> spec I'm aware of suggests prefixes ought to be used _whenever_ there's a
> sized memory operand [1]. If we want to deal with the present "mess", I
> think we ought to simply allow suffixes consistently. Please point out any
> other messy aspects beyond that.

The default behavior for current ISA is when there is no suffix required, it won't
mention that.

Haochen

> 
> Jan
> 
> [1] They further say "long" is implied when there's no suffix, which imo
> gas validly doesn't follow in cases where a further register operand
> indicates otherwise.