From: "Cui, Lili" <lili.cui@intel.com>
To: "Beulich, Jan" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "Lu, Hongjiu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>,
"binutils@sourceware.org" <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: RE: FW: [PATCH 3/8] Add tests for APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:26:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SJ0PR11MB560005F1565A9CD37FA7201A9ED5A@SJ0PR11MB5600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a899746f-4804-8a55-fd8d-6e1be4f3fa84@suse.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 4:06 PM
> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Cc: Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>; binutils@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH 3/8] Add tests for APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix
>
> On 18.10.2023 09:16, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >> On 18.10.2023 04:32, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >>>>>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-inval-movbe.s
> >>>>>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-inval-movbe.s
> >>>>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> >>>>>>> # Check illegal movbe in 64bit mode.
> >>>>>>> .text
> >>>>>>> + .arch .noapx_f
> >>>>>>> foo:
> >>>>>>> movbe (%rcx),%bl
> >>>>>>> movbe %ecx,%ebx
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't understand the need for this addition (and hence for the
> >>>>>> need to change the test's expecations). Like was mentioned on the
> >>>>>> original
> >>>>>> AVX10 series, tests like this shall not need modification, or
> >>>>>> else it indicates people's code also may need ".arch .noapx_f"
> >>>>>> additions, which I'm sure you agree may not be required. Finally,
> >>>>>> if testcase expecations like the above would be needed anywhere,
> >>>>>> please generalize them such that a similar mere addition of a
> >>>>>> line doesn't require the entire test to be touched. Here this
> >>>>>> means that while for the diagnostics you of course want exact
> >>>>>> line number matches, for the actual listing line numbers don't
> >>>>>> don't need matching
> >> individually.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree with you, but movbe is special, movbe didn't support reg to
> >>>>> reg
> >>>> before, but APX enable it. so I added .arch .noapx_f for this invalid test.
> >>>>
> >>>> To be honest I didn't really notice this difference so far. That's
> >>>> somewhat ugly, because people mistakenly using a reg->reg form
> >>>> would suddenly get an EVEX encoding rather than an error. This will
> >>>> need some further thought; please mention the "anomaly" explicitly
> >>>> in the
> >> description of the respective patch.
> >>>>
> >>> SPEC:
> >>> Note: The promoted versions of MOVBE will be extended to include the
> >>> “MOVBE reg1, reg2” form (namely, the ModRM.Mod = 3 case) for both
> >>> opcodes 0xF0 and 0xF1. This extension makes the promotion of BSWAP
> >>> for
> >> NDD support unnecessary.
> >>>
> >>> I'll add a description of movbe to the patch 2/8 changelog.
> >>
> >> Thanks. I did deduce the connection to BSWAP on the way home yesterday.
> >> Which made me come up with a (spec) question: Wouldn't it make sense
> >> to name these
> >> reg->reg forms BSWAP, not MOVBE? It doesn't really matter that they
> >> reg->use the
> >> same encoding as the MOVBE (then mem-only) forms. That would then
> >> eliminate the concern I raised.
> >>
> >
> > If we extend BSWAP, it needs to add the operation of reading ModRM.Mod. I
> think this is the benefit of this solution now.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow: I don't propose extending the original BSWAP.
> I merely propose to use the BSWAP mnemonic with the reg->reg form of
> what's presently called MOVBE. (As an aside, in principle no ModR/M byte
> would be needed to extend the original BSWAP: One operand is encoded in
> the base opcode, and the other could be encoded in VVVV. But that would of
> course needlessly consume an entire row in the opcode table. Hence why I
> fully understand that the opcode wants sharing with MOVBE.)
>
I think it's a trade-off between functionality closer to BSWAP and opcode closer to MOVBE. Since the spec was published and gcc has committed the patch to the community, I think it would be hard to push it to change.
> >> As to 2/8: I received two v2 thereof, with different titles, and a v2 of 3/8.
> >> But nothing else. The list archives match this. I may take a brief
> >> look, but really I'll await a full v2 submission for a proper new review
> round.
> >>
> > After we split a new patch for the EVEX_MAP4_ table, we need to insert a
> patch into the previous patch. I am afraid that if I change the patch number,
> the subsequent review will be easily confused, so I have not changed the patch
> number for the time being. But for V3 I'll create a new patch number for it.
>
> Patch numbering should always match the entire series, plus it should be the
> common case that complete series are sent out, not just new versions of
> individual patches. In the unusual event of nevertheless doing so, patch
> numbering can still be made unambiguous by e.g. (considering this
> case) using 1.9/8, making clear the new patch comes ahead of the revised
> original one. (Whether a new version of a series is shrunk or extended is
> entirely independent of that. E.g. in the case here I could easily see a new
> version combining the two series which were sent initially, for whatever
> reason.)
>
Got it, thank you very much.
Lili.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-18 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-19 15:25 [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] Support Intel APX EGPR Cui, Lili
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 1/8] Support APX GPR32 with rex2 prefix Cui, Lili
2023-09-21 15:27 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-27 15:57 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-21 15:51 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-27 15:59 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-28 8:02 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-07 3:27 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/8] Support APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix Cui, Lili
2023-09-22 10:12 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-17 15:48 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 6:40 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 10:44 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 10:50 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-22 10:50 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-17 15:50 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-17 16:11 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 2:02 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 6:10 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-25 6:03 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-17 15:52 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-17 16:12 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 6:31 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 6:47 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 7:52 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 8:21 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 11:30 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-19 11:58 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-19 15:24 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-19 16:38 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-20 6:25 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-22 14:33 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 3/8] Add tests for " Cui, Lili
2023-09-27 13:11 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-17 15:53 ` FW: " Cui, Lili
2023-10-17 16:19 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 2:32 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 6:05 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 7:16 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-18 8:05 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-18 11:26 ` Cui, Lili [this message]
2023-10-18 12:06 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-25 16:03 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-27 13:19 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 4/8] Support APX NDD Cui, Lili
2023-09-27 14:44 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-22 14:05 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-23 7:12 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-25 8:10 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-25 8:47 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-25 15:49 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-25 15:59 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-28 7:57 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-22 14:57 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-24 11:39 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-24 11:58 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-25 15:29 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 5/8] Support APX NDD optimized encoding Cui, Lili
2023-09-28 9:29 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-23 2:57 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-23 7:23 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-23 7:50 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-23 8:15 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-24 1:40 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-24 6:03 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-24 6:08 ` Hu, Lin1
2023-10-23 3:07 ` [PATCH-V2] " Hu, Lin1
2023-10-23 3:30 ` [PATCH 5/8] [v2] " Hu, Lin1
2023-10-23 7:26 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 6/8] Support APX Push2/Pop2 Cui, Lili
2023-09-28 11:37 ` Jan Beulich
2023-10-30 15:21 ` Cui, Lili
2023-10-30 15:31 ` Jan Beulich
2023-11-20 13:05 ` Cui, Lili
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 7/8] Support APX NF Cui, Lili
2023-09-25 6:07 ` Jan Beulich
2023-09-28 12:42 ` Jan Beulich
2023-11-02 10:15 ` Cui, Lili
2023-11-02 10:23 ` Jan Beulich
2023-11-02 10:46 ` Cui, Lili
2023-12-12 2:59 ` H.J. Lu
2023-09-19 15:25 ` [PATCH 8/8] Support APX JMPABS Cui, Lili
2023-09-28 13:11 ` Jan Beulich
2023-11-02 2:32 ` Hu, Lin1
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=SJ0PR11MB560005F1565A9CD37FA7201A9ED5A@SJ0PR11MB5600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=lili.cui@intel.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=hongjiu.lu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).