Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: improve operand reversal

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07.08.18 at 14:06, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:37 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 06.08.18 at 18:25, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06.08.18 at 17:09, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But there is no indication at all in your patch to show that it does
>>>>>> anything remotely to {load} nor {store}.   All your testcase changes
>>>>>> are for the ".s" suffix.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a whole lot of stuff getting added to *pseudos.s.
>>>>
>>>> That will make sure that {load} and {store} are handler properly
>>>> by actually testing them, instead of relying on the deprecated
>>>> ".s" suffix.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I'm now confused by the "will" in your response: This
>>> makes it sound as if you assume something is yet to be added. But
>>> all those tests are already there. Bottom line - I'm still hanging in
>>> the air as to which way to proceed (see the earlier enumerated
>>> three options).
>>
>> Your change is't needed unless you can show that it improves {load}
>> or {store}.
>
> H.J., please. What is the purpose of me adding a whole lot of stuff
> to *pseudos.s? Try assembling this without this patch in place. Then

1. Verify that your change has expected impact on {load} and {store}.
2. Make sure that their behavior is unchanged in the future.

It is perfectly OK for the ".s" suffix to fail since it has been deprecated.

-- 
H.J.