This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] x86: move certain MOVSX/MOVZX tests
On 11.02.2020 14:01, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11.02.2020 13:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:55 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 support
>>>
>>> movsx %ax, %ecx
>>> movzx %ax, %ecx
>>> movswl %ax, %ecx
>>> movzwl %ax, %ecx
>>>
>>> We disallow
>>>
>>> movsxw %ax, %ecx
>>> movzxw %ax, %ecx
>>
>> We don't (as this patch demonstrates, along with pre-existing tests,
>> unless you mean once again to have an inconsistency between insns
>> with all register operands and similar ones with e memory source),
>> and if you want it to be this way, then please do so yourself, but
>
> I will do it.
>
>> please also only on top of my changes, so I won't need to re-base
>
> Which changes of yours are you referring to?
This patch and the subsequent one.
Jan
>> _yet_ another time.
>>
>> Just to repeat my request from an earlier version: Please take the
>> time to check what this patch does (documenting _just_ current
>> behavior), and what the next patch changes behavior-wise. And
>> please comment on that following patch in case you think it makes
>> a change that it shouldn't make, i.e. in particular one which
>> isn't in line with other similar behavior.
>>
>> Jan
>
>
>