Re: [PATCH] i386: Only check suffix in instruction mnemonic

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

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:21 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 12.11.2019 21:43,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:16 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11.11.2019 18:04,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>> On the positive side this fixes MOVDIRI handling: Previously only
> >>>> the operand-size less cases below would have been accepted, whereas
> >>>> now all 6 valid ones remain without diagnostic.
> >>
> >> (Leaving this in context for the question below.)
> >>
> >>>> Btw, would you mind me putting in the testsuite parts of the
> >>>> alternative patches I had sent for this PR?
> >>
> >> [You didn't reply to this at all.]
> >
> > Sure, please submit a patch.
>
> Well, I did submit a pair of them already, and my question is if I
> may put them in with the tc-i386.c change dropped.

Please submit a new one without the tc-i386.c change.  If it only
updates Intel syntax tests, it is pre-approved.

> >>>>         movdiri [rcx], eax
> >>>>         movdiri dword ptr [rcx], eax
> >>>>         movdiri qword ptr [rcx], eax
> >>>>
> >>>>         movdiri [rcx], rax
> >>>>         movdiri dword ptr [rcx], rax
> >>>>         movdiri qword ptr [rcx], rax
> >>>>
> >>>>         .code32
> >>>>         movdiri [ecx], eax
> >>>>         movdiri dword ptr [ecx], eax
> >>>>         movdiri qword ptr [ecx], eax
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you submit a patch?
> >>
> >> A patch to do what? Extend existing testcases? Shouldn't this
> >> once again have been the job of the person adding support for
> >> the insn?
> >
> > I'd like to avoid touching Intel syntax.
>
> So what are the answers to the first two questions then?
>

What are the questions again?

-- 
H.J.