Re: [PATCH 10/10] x86: correct VFPCLASSP{S,D} operand size handling

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse dot com>]

On 09.08.2019 19:13,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:58 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > On 09.08.2019 16:57,  H.J. Lu  wrote:
> > > When I see
> > >
> > > 22   vfpclasspd $0, (%eax), %k0
> > >
> > > I can't tell what the memory size is.
> >
> > Excuse me, but when you go through source code it is assumed
> > that you know what your source code means and does. No-one
>
> The assembly source code can come from anywhere.
>
> > requires you to omit the suffix. But equally no-one should be
> > required to specify a suffix just to meet your taste.
>
> These instructions can take different memory sizes.  One should
> be able to tell what the memory size is by looking at it. Is that too
> much to ask?

This is not too much to ask, but is a decision of the programmers
writing assembly code, not something to enforce by gas. Once
again - given the context things may be entirely unambiguous. I
can only re-emphasize that as a maintainer you should weigh your
personal preferences against what others may think, want, or need.

> > Let me be frank here: If you continue to refuse to allow this
> > change in, I'll have to make it work correctly for Intel syntax
> > mode only (which requires more code for no gain), just to avoid
> > the need to have you ack the change. I don't think though that
> > this would be a good course of action.

I find it quite interesting that you didn't even care to comment
on this part.

Jan