RE: [PATCH V5 1/9] Support APX GPR32 with rex2 prefix

["Cui, Lili" <lili.cui@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 10:45 PM
> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Cc: Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>; binutils@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] Support APX GPR32 with rex2 prefix
> 
> On 28.12.2023 02:27, Cui, Lili wrote:
> > @@ -4168,11 +4201,11 @@ static void establish_rex (void)
> >  	}
> >      }
> >
> > -  if (i.rex == 0 && i.rex_encoding)
> > +   if (i.rex == 0 && i.rex2 == 0 && (i.rex_encoding ||
> > + i.rex2_encoding))
> 
> Any reason the indentation of this line was changed (to now be wrong)?
> 

Ok, I will fix it.

> > @@ -7015,6 +7080,43 @@ VEX_check_encoding (const insn_template *t)
> >    return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Check if Egprs operands are valid for the instruction.  */
> > +
> > +static bool
> > +check_EgprOperands (const insn_template *t) {
> > +  if (!t->opcode_modifier.noegpr)
> > +    return 0;
> > +
> > +  for (unsigned int op = 0; op < i.operands; op++)
> > +    {
> > +      if (i.types[op].bitfield.class != Reg)
> > +	continue;
> > +
> > +      if (i.op[op].regs->reg_flags & RegRex2)
> > +	{
> > +	  i.error = register_type_mismatch;
> > +	  return 1;
> > +	}
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  if ((i.index_reg && (i.index_reg->reg_flags & RegRex2))
> > +      || (i.base_reg && (i.base_reg->reg_flags & RegRex2)))
> > +    {
> > +      i.error = unsupported_EGPR_for_addressing;
> > +      return 1;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  /* Check if pseudo prefix {rex2} is valid.  */  if
> > + (i.rex2_encoding)
> > +    {
> > +      i.error = invalid_pseudo_prefix;
> > +      return 1;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  return 0;
> > +}
> 
> A function with return type "bool" would better return true/false, not 1/0,
> with "true" representing success / okay / good.
> 
OK.

Thanks,
Lili.