This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: Mark cvtpi2ps and cvtpi2pd as MMX
On 19.02.2020 14:14, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 19.02.2020 13:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>> @@ -8636,7 +8636,9 @@ output_insn (void)
>>> x86_feature_2_used |= GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_2_X87;
>>> if (i.has_regmmx
>>> || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf77 /* emms */
>>> - || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf0e /* femms */)
>>> + || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf0e /* femms */
>>> + || i.tm.base_opcode == 0xf2a /* cvtpi2ps */
>>> + || i.tm.base_opcode == 0x660f2a /* cvtpi2pd */)
>>
>> While for the former I agree, the latter - as pointed out
>> elsewhere - does explicitly _not_ switch into MMX mode when
>> the source operand is in memory.
>
> They are still MMX instructions even with memory operand.
Not exactly, see CVTPI2PD's description in the SDM.
>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp
>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/i386.exp
>>> @@ -601,6 +601,7 @@ if [expr ([istarget "i*86-*-*"] || [istarget "x86_64-*-*"]) && [gas_32_check]]
>>> run_dump_test "evex-no-scale-32"
>>> run_dump_test "property-1"
>>> run_dump_test "property-2"
>>> + run_dump_test "property-3"
>>>
>>> if {[istarget "*-*-linux*"]} then {
>>> run_dump_test "align-branch-3"
>>> @@ -1166,6 +1167,7 @@ if [expr ([istarget "i*86-*-*"] || [istarget "x86_64-*-*"]) && [gas_64_check]] t
>>> run_dump_test "evex-no-scale-64"
>>> run_dump_test "x86-64-property-1"
>>> run_dump_test "x86-64-property-2"
>>> + run_dump_test "x86-64-property-3"
>>
>> While I appreciate you adding a test for this case, my
>> questions from several weeks back on the _intended_ behavior
>> of this tracking were because I found all of the to be
>> pretty broken. The brokenness would have become obvious (I
>> think) if proper testing of at least a fair part of cases
>> was actually done. Therefore I'm not convinced adding tests
>> of individual sub-sub-cases is actually going to be helpful.
>
> More tests are welcome.
Of course, but before adding tests I'd like to get things into
sane state, which is going to take time. I'm _not_ going to add
tests documenting the current, broken state. That's why I did
ask what the _intended_ behavior actually is (and to be honest
I'm still left guessing or taking my own decisions, as your
replies were only partly helpful; hence my shifting it down my
todo list).
Jan