Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse dot com>]

On 11.02.2020 12:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:25 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some encodings are about to gain a warning - move them from test cases
>> not expecting any diagnostics to the new, dedicated ones, to allow
>> better focus on the actual changes in the subsequent patch.
>>
>> The new tests added have some wrong expectations right now, which will
>> be corrected by the next patch. The test is being added here to make
>> more visible which cases actually were wrong (and hence get changed),
>> besides demonstrating that in the vast majority of cases the subsequent
>> change doesn't alter generated code.
>>
>> gas/
>> 2020-02-XX  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.s, testsuite/gas/i386/iamcu-1.s,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/ilp32/x86-64.s: Move ambiguous operand size
>>         tests ...
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/noreg16.s, testsuite/gas/i386/noreg32.s,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/noreg64.s, testsuite/gas/i386/x86_64.s: ...
>>         here.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.d, testsuite/gas/i386/i386-intel.d
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/iamcu-1.d, testsuite/gas/i386/ilp32/x86-64.d,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/k1om.d, testsuite/gas/i386/l1om.d,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/noreg16.d, testsuite/gas/i386/noreg32.d,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/noreg64.d, testsuite/gas/i386/x86_64-intel.d,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/x86_64.d: Adjust expectations.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/movx16.s, testsuite/gas/i386/movx16.l,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/movx32.s, testsuite/gas/i386/movx32.l,
>>         testsuite/gas/i386/movx64.s, testsuite/gas/i386/movx64.l: New.
>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp: Run new tests.
> 
> Please make a separate patch to address MOVSX/MOVZX.

I don't understand what you mean here. This patch simply documents the
status quo, to make it (much) easier to see what the next patch
actually adjusts. It doesn't "address" anything. If, for the purpose
of committing, you'd like to see both patches folded - fine by me. But
only then, not any earlier.

>  MOVSX and MOVZX
> should take no suffixes.  AT&T syntax is supported if there is no
> ambiguity.  AT&T
> syntax also supports movsXY and movzXY.

Please could you clarify what specifically you'd like to see changed,
at the very least by pointing out one case each where you think I'm
moving in the wrong direction (presumably in the next patch really)?
I'm afraid your response isn't such that I can derive from it what
exactly you want.

>   We should also improve MOVSX/MOVZX documentation.

Probably, but not here and now.

Jan