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

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

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:18 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07.08.18 at 15:40, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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}.
>
> That's what the test case additions (*pseudos.s) are for.

The ".s" suffix tests != {load} and {store} tests.

>> 2. Make sure that their behavior is unchanged in the future.
>
> Again - that's what the test case additions (*pseudos.s) are for.
>
>> It is perfectly OK for the ".s" suffix to fail since it has been deprecated.
>
> But it is then also (imo) perfectly okay if some previously broken
> .s uses now suddenly work. And by extension it could then also
> be okay to actually test that those now working cases work
> sensibly (and will continue to work in the future).
>
> In the end I _still_ don't know what you want me to do.
>

I don't want any new ".s" suffix tests.


-- 
H.J.