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 11:22 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 13.11.2019 22:10,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Done.
>
> >  If it only updates Intel syntax tests, it is pre-approved.
>
> I realize that strictly speaking I wouldn't have needed approval
> here, and hence should simply have gone ahead anyway.
>
> >>>>>>         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?
>
> You asked "Can you submit a patch?" which I responded to asking
> "A patch to do what?"

I thought you were asking for test changes.


-- 
H.J.