From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991303858C2F for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 14:13:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 991303858C2F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 991303858C2F Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::332 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1702390430; cv=none; b=rBk2w+h6yOg4bi+78GlnVF5n5r9xOjtOuAb7QjBqgmbuQ4FDSdH3HRSctAqJsOcJ0Bf6xx/HNhD+dchIT8odzmOI7mZAx7kPevlQ6ZrCCTW3Ozl9HGKDy48D5U5s8PLXg4fSP0V3ltggzeo6o2lFHx8M7miKHIb5KSTqr5cHBfM= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1702390430; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JmDbbprdNArJGvV7I+N/xOjL68bY93jxBU14pJzH2/I=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=GzJ1eawXThzBKs20UeB3qmbjeh7H2kYAWz/JCUqO+Qdc0EqenD8f72zLORfRCzhVBo6Y5ZbUa18o/vjkOpPEGEDrYTTCLnOhbYO93Eeq9GWHg6DyyhftI5GCsQrZWRI/bqFWcXGyNc8HtPuFS8snM7mHTmMzzwoiCjUhMqldWSA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40c46d6784eso20889765e9.3 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 06:13:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1702390423; x=1702995223; darn=sourceware.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from:references:cc :to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KlZin15Zz8HEiX8bd2mk3+PNY7ia9LRMCbSWSlqUlvQ=; b=X8x/yAXwW24qe28s0Rju39plYBwcpQjcEwpI1+SaLVa6vMlgTMbSndmtN+0rWFr8QW oUT7DXPu0gLKD10sFbFrlU2EI8vltt/ld6s6TJI4GMYRuq7dRKgE5zCdKoL2JBozwmGG 193CexlCuMWXF5BUCbiDxQllab831qvg5UZ9Vd/KTYtLcg2wCtjicuFb+Lap/FsqDc2d LbXy6rOiPk2nPhTgwy+Tcsg7Y78yAzGga+GtNON+NaOxpKzztj5NhsPFXpM35drcy3RQ hX+XQ/JYKzcBoJbY7t2MFlulqyTgmGWZR2aoz+2078/4UdtZmhYbQOI6jr2wjqPvTvhT ib4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702390423; x=1702995223; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:autocrypt:from:references:cc :to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KlZin15Zz8HEiX8bd2mk3+PNY7ia9LRMCbSWSlqUlvQ=; b=BWbbpfq5DMU7xIZN1+paDt0rvGJltYwgdF8MuVG739L7g1eLnuv/DziZwkCVF5sXcs cspCSF9diE8zfdogdkDOXLrjuegmj8nHdJ0bCFllZCvL9cOLN8ZjoFKx1+SZSswPCVCz gknV2Rf++Thq5HlqtyWA3c2jrbVphDNlbSOOAg8iKM4DKqOh42vgRaEtI8RkFaBFLJ05 4HJz0eESg06LpqGiNm1V+kWQo5XEaPe/0c35xxxErUs8fO/Yh5WytRUz3zXdTxfRrb/1 2Th9Ie+psvgFWUWzJ3OmIfgu1DXYdRB6P8wAr4B7SpYbtPCN41aqJfdigv9VOS8OlHqb s/ZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy8tfkJ/DkFbGMP7+q83IETj/U1kQwq3p5jq0dSFM/WLPLqYd+3 sY/y0MctsTq97cSyw0vRBlb8sz97sITwt2Dd3zfD X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHvYe25ZmGZcwAGrwWAgpNhlNo9vPikjawwGrToqT+c99Ash5ihvVRsBXB+AHtu9kawAvOKhQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:468d:b0:40c:31f1:1468 with SMTP id p13-20020a05600c468d00b0040c31f11468mr3442861wmo.165.1702390423121; Tue, 12 Dec 2023 06:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.156.60.236] (ip-037-024-206-209.um08.pools.vodafone-ip.de. [37.24.206.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u21-20020a05600c139500b00405d9a950a2sm18894939wmf.28.2023.12.12.06.13.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Dec 2023 06:13:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:13:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] Support APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix Content-Language: en-US To: "Cui, Lili" Cc: "Lu, Hongjiu" , "binutils@sourceware.org" References: <20231124070213.3886483-1-lili.cui@intel.com> <20231124070213.3886483-4-lili.cui@intel.com> <546c8890-0526-49a3-8310-319358bf55c2@suse.com> <0bb5fbcd-f58e-48ad-a5ee-3413b026f903@suse.com> <61ef66ac-ae1c-4c57-b800-475437e225e6@suse.com> From: Jan Beulich Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@suse.com; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3026.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 12.12.2023 14:15, Cui, Lili wrote: >> On 12.12.2023 13:32, Cui, Lili wrote: >>>>>>>>> @@ -3670,10 +3673,11 @@ install_template (const insn_template >>>>>>>>> *t) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /* Dual VEX/EVEX templates need stripping one of the possible >>>>>> variants. */ >>>>>>>>> if (t->opcode_modifier.vex && t->opcode_modifier.evex) >>>>>>>>> - { >>>>>>>>> - if ((maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX) || maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX2) >>>>>>>>> - || maybe_cpu (t, CpuFMA)) >>>>>>>>> - && (maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX512F) || maybe_cpu (t, >> CpuAVX512VL))) >>>>>>>>> + { >>>>>>>>> + if (AVX512F(CpuAVX) || AVX512F(CpuAVX2) || >> AVX512F(CpuFMA) >>>>>>>>> + || AVX512VL(CpuAVX) || AVX512VL(CpuAVX2) || >>>>>>>> APX_F(CpuCMPCCXADD) >>>>>>>>> + || APX_F(CpuAMX_TILE) || APX_F(CpuAVX512F) || >>>>>>>> APX_F(CpuAVX512DQ) >>>>>>>>> + || APX_F(CpuAVX512BW) || APX_F(CpuBMI) || >>>> APX_F(CpuBMI2)) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> if (need_evex_encoding ()) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are several issues here: >>>>>>>> - Why did you need to change (to the worse) the original code? >>>>>>>> - Why did you not model the addition after that original code? >>>>>>>> - How come APX_F (CpuAVX512*) constructs appear here, when no >>>>>> AVX512 >>>>>>>> insn can be VEX-encoded? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand what you mean, we have this combination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> kmov, 0x90, AVX512BW&(AVX512BW|APX_F), >>>>>>> Modrm|Vex128|EVex128|Space0F|VexW1||NoSuf, { >>>>>>> RegMask||Unspecified|BaseIndex, RegMask } >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, I'm sorry: I forgot about the mask register insns. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> - If these new macros are really needed for whatever reason, they >>>>>> shouldn't >>>>>>>> be added to opcodes/i386-opc.h when they're useful only in the >>>>>> assembler. >>>>>>>> - Style requires a blank before the opening parenthesis in function >>>>>>>> invocations (which also covers function-like macro invocations). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think I asked before: How is it that you get away without >>>>>>>> altering cpu_flags_match(), containing related and quite similar >> logic? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the original logic ( ... || ... ) && ( ... || ...), the >>>>>>> content in the first bracket >>>>>> and the content in the following brackets can be combined >>>>>> arbitrarily. I think it is Inaccurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> In which way? If there are issues with the existing code, these >>>>>> issues want taking care of in separate (prereq) patches. Of course >>>>>> there are assumptions made here about the CPU combinations that can >>>>>> (and cannot) occur in any of our templates. Similar assumptions are >>>>>> imo >>>> fine to make in the APX additions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note how I used two nested if()s despite that not having been >>>>>> necessary at that time. I did so in anticipation that for APX you'd >>>>>> want to add another >>>>>> (separate) inner if(), rather than altering the one that's there. >>>>> >>>>> Could we remove the CPU check here? it's a bit ugly and has limited >>>> effectiveness. >>>>> >>>>> if (t->opcode_modifier.vex && t->opcode_modifier.evex) >>>>> { >>>>> if (AVX512F(CpuAVX) || AVX512F(CpuAVX2) || AVX512F(CpuFMA) >>>>> || AVX512VL(CpuAVX) || AVX512VL(CpuAVX2) || >>>> APX_F(CpuCMPCCXADD) >>>>> || APX_F(CpuAMX_TILE) || APX_F(CpuAVX512F) || >>>> APX_F(CpuAVX512DQ) >>>>> || APX_F(CpuAVX512BW) || APX_F(CpuBMI) || APX_F(CpuBMI2)) >>>> >>>> I agree on the "a bit ugly" part, but taking what's there right now I >>>> don't understand "has limited effectiveness". Of course you can >>>> remove any code you want, provided you can prove nothing breaks. >>>> >>> >>> Here is install_template(). >>> All I can say is that after removing the CPU check, no test cases failed. I >> know it's hard to convince you to delete this place, or what do you suggest to >> do with this? APX requires this, otherwise the test cases will fail. >>> >>> - if (AVX512F(CpuAVX) || AVX512F(CpuAVX2) || AVX512F(CpuFMA) >>> - || AVX512VL(CpuAVX) || AVX512VL(CpuAVX2) || >> APX_F(CpuCMPCCXADD) >>> - || APX_F(CpuAMX_TILE) || APX_F(CpuAVX512F) || >> APX_F(CpuAVX512DQ) >>> - || APX_F(CpuAVX512BW) || APX_F(CpuBMI) || APX_F(CpuBMI2)) >>> - { >> >> So be it then (assuming you don't delete any pre-existing code there). As said, >> I expect this will bite us later. > > Done. I can't connect this with ... > + if ((maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX) || maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX2) > + || maybe_cpu (t, CpuFMA)) > + && (maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX512F) || maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX512VL)) > + || APX_F(CpuCMPCCXADD) || APX_F(CpuAMX_TILE) || APX_F(CpuAVX512F) > + || APX_F(CpuAVX512DQ) || APX_F(CpuAVX512BW) || APX_F(CpuBMI) > + || APX_F(CpuBMI2)) ... this: You said you want to remove all the new checks. And now you say "done" with the checks all still there? And even if I misunderstood you, I still don't see why you'd modify the existing condition: The adjustments made in the body of the if() aren't applicable to APX afaict. Plus there are still the odd APX_F() uses; I'm sure I commented on that before. If any adjustments need making for APX, you want to add a 2nd inner if() inside the enclosing one. Jan