Re: [PATCH] x86: fix operand size checking

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>]

>>> On 16.07.18 at 14:20, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 14.07.18 at 15:07, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> Currently mov to/from control, debug, and test register insns accept any
>>>> size GPR operand (general pattern: templates with D set and both
>>>> operands being registers in distinct register files). This is due to
>>>> improper checking of the reverse case, including not informing the
>>>> caller whether a straight and/or reverse match was successful.
>>>>
>>>> The helper functions need to be told two indexes: One to index the given
>>>> operand types array, and the other to index the template one. The caller
>>>> must attempt a further straight match only if the function reported a
>>>> straight match (and respectively for reverse matches).
>>>>
>>>> gas/
>>>> 2018-07-13  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>>
>>>>         * config/tc-i386.c (match_reg_size): Split second parameter
>>>>         into two.
>>>>         (match_simd_size): Likewise.
>>>>         (match_mem_size): Likewise.
>>>>         (MATCH_STRAIGHT, MATCH_REVERSE): Define.
>>>>         (operand_size_match): Change return type. New local variable
>>>>         "match". Always check for reverse match when opcode_modifier.d
>>>>         is set.
>>>>         (match_template) New local variable "size_match". Skip further
>>>>         matching if operand_size_match() did not report a respective
>>>>         match.
>>>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/inval.s: Add control register reads/writes.
>>>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/inval.l: Adjust expectations.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>
>> Thanks. This is one of the prereqs to the further template folding (and
>> other fixes/improvements) series that I have pending, and that I would
>> want to get flushed out. The other is the pre-processing (or not) patch
>> that I've inquired about on last Wednesday: Could you respond there,
>> or do you expect me to send out the entire about 20 patch series, just
> 
> Which one? I thought I had replied all.

"Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86: fold various AVX512VL templates into their AVX512F
counterparts" sent on the 11th. I didn't see any replies, and the mailing list
archive doesn't have any either.

Thanks, Jan