[PATCH] x86: fix operand size checking

[H.J. Lu]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14.07.18 at 15:07, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> Currently mov to/from control, debug, and test register insns accept any
>>> size GPR operand (general pattern: templates with D set and both
>>> operands being registers in distinct register files). This is due to
>>> improper checking of the reverse case, including not informing the
>>> caller whether a straight and/or reverse match was successful.
>>>
>>> The helper functions need to be told two indexes: One to index the given
>>> operand types array, and the other to index the template one. The caller
>>> must attempt a further straight match only if the function reported a
>>> straight match (and respectively for reverse matches).
>>>
>>> gas/
>>> 2018-07-13  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>
>>>         * config/tc-i386.c (match_reg_size): Split second parameter
>>>         into two.
>>>         (match_simd_size): Likewise.
>>>         (match_mem_size): Likewise.
>>>         (MATCH_STRAIGHT, MATCH_REVERSE): Define.
>>>         (operand_size_match): Change return type. New local variable
>>>         "match". Always check for reverse match when opcode_modifier.d
>>>         is set.
>>>         (match_template) New local variable "size_match". Skip further
>>>         matching if operand_size_match() did not report a respective
>>>         match.
>>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/inval.s: Add control register reads/writes.
>>>         * testsuite/gas/i386/inval.l: Adjust expectations.
>>
>> OK.
>
> Thanks. This is one of the prereqs to the further template folding (and
> other fixes/improvements) series that I have pending, and that I would
> want to get flushed out. The other is the pre-processing (or not) patch
> that I've inquired about on last Wednesday: Could you respond there,
> or do you expect me to send out the entire about 20 patch series, just

Which one? I thought I had replied all.

> to find again that you're not happy with the approach taken in the very
> first patch?
>
> Thanks, Jan
>
>



-- 
H.J.