[PATCH] x86: remove stray instruction attributes

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 30.06.16 at 14:29, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:31, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 12:23, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> - with Cpu64 Disp16 makes no sense for memory operands
>>>>> - with CpuNo64 Disp32S makes no sense
>>>>> - non-64-bit lgdt doesn't allow 10-byte operands
>>>>
>>>> Another thing I've been thinking of, which I believe would greatly
>>>> improve readability of opcodes/i386-opc.tbl, is to remove the
>>>> various No_*Suf specifications when an instruction doesn't allow
>>>> any suffix: Since no instruction will possibly allow for every one of
>>>> them, i386-gen could easily be made set all 6 bits when none of
>>>> them got set by parsing of the input. Thoughts?
>>>
>>> I don't mind replacing all those No_*Suf with something close
>>> to what spec says.
>>
>> I don't understand: I was proposing to remove them where they're
>> pointless (and can be inferred); I don't see how what the spec says
>> comes into the picture here (namely I didn't mean to effect any
>> behavioral change).
> 
> No_*Suf  is something we made up.  It isn't clear which instructions
> should have it from spec.  Can we replace it with something from spec?

Do you know of a formal specification of AT&T syntax? Intel syntax
really uses only very few suffixes.

But again - my point was merely cleanup, yet you continue to ask for
more. Am I to take that to mean that the cleanup alone isn't worth it?

Jan