This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] x86: correct VFPCLASSP{S,D} operand size handling
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 09:03:20 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] x86: correct VFPCLASSP{S,D} operand size handling
- References: <b53b0a7a-781c-e705-82a1-3680bf635cbc@suse.com> <11f5cb95-9e6b-034b-5887-12d0d387fa8a@suse.com> <CAMe9rOr4OswZg=Hxt2CN_wNYoqg5+ikCenzqwheNZ+HtvmzKqw@mail.gmail.com>
On 29.10.2019 20:16, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> With AVX512VL disabled (e.g. when writing code for the Knights family
>> of processors) these insns aren't ambiguous when used with a memory
>> source, and hence should be accepted without suffix or operand size
>> specifier. When AVX512VL is enabled, to be consistent with this as
>> well as other ambiguous operand size handling it seems better to just
>> wanrn about the ambiguity in AT&T mode, and still default to 512-bit
>> operands (on the assumption that the code may have been written without
>> AVX512VL in mind yet).
>
> There is no need for this. Memory size or suffix is always needed for them.
It is not - what you say (again) is your private opinion, not (afaict)
something based on some objective criteria. If I'm missing something
here, please clarify, but recall that we've been discussing this before.
Jan