From: "Cui, Lili" <lili.cui@intel.com>
To: "Beulich, Jan" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] x86/Intel: AVX512 syntax enhancements
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 03:15:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SJ0PR11MB5600601F476E32C0232CECA29ED19@SJ0PR11MB5600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <274695c3-fcaf-9af6-e6be-53c42568225f@suse.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:00 PM
> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Cc: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>; Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86/Intel: AVX512 syntax enhancements
>
> > 1. If we use BCST instead {1to*}, it cannot directly reflect the broadcast
> number. When the register size is zmm, but broadcast number is not the
> same.
> >
> > -[ ]*[a-f0-9]+:[ ]*62 f5 54 58 58 31[ ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,WORD PTR
> \[ecx\]\{1to32\}
> > +[ ]*[a-f0-9]+:[ ]*62 f5 54 58 58 31[ ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,WORD
> BCST \[ecx\]
> >
> > -[ ]*[a-f0-9]+:[ ]*62 65 7d df 5b 72 80[ ]*vcvtph2dq
> zmm30\{k7\}\{z\},WORD PTR \[rdx-0x100\]\{1to16\}
> > +[ ]*[a-f0-9]+:[ ]*62 65 7d df 5b 72 80[ ]*vcvtph2dq
> zmm30\{k7\}\{z\},WORD BCST \[rdx-0x100\]
>
> This case is clearly disambiguated by the destination register.
> What I think you're worried about are conversions where the field size
> shrinks (e.g. from 32 bits to 16 bits, like in vcvtdq2ph). In this case you will
> note that for the purpose of keeping things unambiguous the disassembler
> will continue to emit {1to<N>}, and the assembler will continue to require
> that extra bit of information.
>
The format of appending {1to<N>} for vcvtdq2ph special case is great.
There is no ambiguity for the format of vcvtph2dq zmm30{k7}{z},WORD BCST [rdx-0x100], but we cannot direct know the N ({1to<N>}) for this BCST format, although we can confirm it with the SDM. I just trying to say for the first impression, BAST format has this disadvantage.
> > 2. Just remove the last comma, it's ok for me, I remember FP16 has an
> instruction with {sae} on the middle position for the ATT format. But the intel
> format is placed at the end, I don't know if there is any problem.
> >
> > -[ ]*[a-f0-9]+:[ ]*62 f5 54 18 58 f4[ ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,zmm4,\{rn-
> sae\}
> > +[ ]*[a-f0-9]+:[ ]*62 f5 54 18 58 f4[ ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,zmm4\{rn-
> sae\}
> >
> > FP16:
> > vcvtusi2sh %edx, {rn-sae}, %xmm29, %xmm30 vcvtusi2sh
> > xmm6,xmm5,edx\{rn-sae\}
>
> Well, yes, this is not only not a problem, but intended. See how the SDM
> places the rounding/SAE modifiers. It's also not FP16-specific in any way.
>
Yes, SDM put the rounding/SAE behind the last register operand, if the last operand is immediate, it will put rounding/SAE before the immediate. But I don't quite understand why ATT format put it after %edx instead of before.
> > 3. This can reduce the templates size, it is good to me.
> +Modrm|EVexLIG|Masking=3|EVexMap5|VexVVVV|VexW0|Disp8MemShift
> =1|No_bSu
> > +f|No_wSuf|No_lSuf|No_sSuf|No_qSuf|No_ldSuf|StaticRounding|SAE, {
> > +RegXMM|Word|Unspecified|BaseIndex, RegXMM, RegXMM }
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to tell me here.
> Are you asking for some kind of change to be made to the patch(es)?
Please ignore it, no changes are required here, it's ok.
Thanks,
Lili.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-18 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-04 11:44 Jan Beulich
2022-05-04 11:57 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86/Intel: adjust representation of embedded broadcast Jan Beulich
2022-05-04 11:58 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86/Intel: allow MASM " Jan Beulich
2022-05-04 11:59 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86/Intel: adjust representation of embedded rounding / SAE Jan Beulich
2022-05-04 12:00 ` [PATCH 4/5] x86: re-work AVX512 " Jan Beulich
2022-05-04 12:01 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86/Intel: allow MASM representation of " Jan Beulich
2022-05-10 2:37 ` [PATCH 0/5] x86/Intel: AVX512 syntax enhancements Cui, Lili
2022-05-17 12:00 ` Jan Beulich
2022-05-18 3:15 ` Cui, Lili [this message]
2022-05-18 6:40 ` Jan Beulich
2022-05-18 15:07 ` H.J. Lu
2022-05-25 7:44 ` Jan Beulich
2022-05-26 14:48 ` H.J. Lu
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=SJ0PR11MB5600601F476E32C0232CECA29ED19@SJ0PR11MB5600.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=lili.cui@intel.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.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).