Re: [PATCH v1 1/1][Binutils] aarch64: Fix the 2nd operand in gcsstr and gcssttr instructions.

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 13.02.2024 19:03, srinath wrote:
> The assembler wrongly expects plain register name instead of
> memory-form 2nd operand for gcsstr and gcssttr instructions.
> This patch fixes the issue.
> 
> Regression testing for aarch64-none-elf target and found no regressions.
> 
> Ok for binutils-master? Also ok to be backported to binutils-2.42 branch?

Looks good to me, but I'm not an Arm64 maintainer. I'd prefer if one of
the two (you didn't even Cc Marcus) would ack the patch, but in case you
don't hear back within a week, feel free to put in on both branches.
That said, ...

> ---
>  gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/gcs-1-bad.l | 48 +++++++++++++--------------

... the need for you to alter the expectations here indicates that the
testcase itself likely was having too specific expectations. For the
intended purpose, the exact set of operands isn't of interest and hence
would likely better have been omitted in the first place. I'm aware
though that it's a common approach to simply not edit expectations from
obtained tool output any further than to add the necessary escaping.
Yet I'm trying to encourage people to put in a little more effort, in
an attempt to limit follow-on effort for themselves or others.

The more thoroughly one zaps irrelevant parts from expectations, the
more likely it also is that one might spot actual issues - this isn't
the case here, i.e. I'm merely trying to provide some further
background, but I've seen it numerous times that expectations were
derived largely blindly from tool output, without checking that the
output is actually correct/sensible in the first place. (I'm afraid
I, too, have been guilty of that in a few cases.)

Jan

>  gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/gcs-1.d     | 48 +++++++++++++--------------
>  gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/gcs-1.s     |  2 +-
>  opcodes/aarch64-tbl.h                 |  4 +--
>  4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>