[PATCH] x86: {f,}xsave64 / {f,}xrstor64 / xsaveopt64 should not allow q suffix

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 10.11.17 at 14:05, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> Just like is the case for xsave{s,c}64 and xrstors64 already. I wonder
>> though why xsave{s,c} and xrstors don't allow for the q suffix, other
>> than the other insns without the "64" suffix do.
> 
> commit eacc9c891d71cfef7f5c1f152291daeab785b3d4
> Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> Date:   Fri Dec 4 07:51:41 2009 +0000
> 
>     Support fxsave64 and fxrstor64.
> 
>     gas/testsuite/
> 
>     2009-12-03  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> 
>             * gas/i386/i386.exp: Run x86-64-fxsave and x86-64-fxsave-intel.
> 
>             * gas/i386/rex.d: Updated for fxsave64.
> 
>             * gas/i386/x86-64-fxsave-intel.d: New.
>             * gas/i386/x86-64-fxsave.d: Likewise.
>             * gas/i386/x86-64-fxsave.s: Likewise.
> 
> were added after fxsaveq was introduced.   Otherwise, fxsaveq won't have been
> there.

I'm aware of this, but not in full agreement: For AT&T syntax, using
the q-suffixed form is more natural. Intel syntax, not normally using
suffixes, would indeed prefer the "64" one, even if not in line with
the SDM / PRM.

Jan