[PATCH] x86: Enable Intel AVX512 VP2INTERSECT instruction

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:34 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 03.06.19 at 17:10, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:34 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> On 31.05.19 at 18:38, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:45 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On 31.05.19 at 09:05, <lili.cui@intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> > gas/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2019-05-27  Igor Tsimbalist  <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>
> >> >> >           Lili Cui  <lili.cui@intel.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >       * config/tc-i386.c (cpu_arch): Add .avx512_vp2intersect.
> >> >> >       (cpu_noarch): Likewise.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there's code missing here: Just like for 4FMAPS and 4VNNIW
> >> >> insns we warn when the programmer has specified a register not
> >> >> evenly divisible by 4 (see the ImplicitQuadGroup attribute), you want
> >> >> to warn here for an odd-numbered mask register. However, rather
> >> >> than taking the easy route by simply adding another boolean, please
> >> >> consider converting the existing one to an enum-like attribute, and
> >> >> simply add another enumerator for the case here. Or quite possibly
> >> >> a renamed boolean attribute could do - both cases can be easily
> >> >> distinguished by there being a %k register affected here, but
> >> >> %[xyz]mm ones there.
> >> >
> >> > vp2intersectd %zmm1, %zmm2, %k0
> >> > vp2intersectd %zmm1, %zmm2, %k1
> >> >
> >> > are well defined by
> >> >
> >> > // dest_mask_reg_id is the register id specified in the instruction for
> >> > destmask
> >> > dest_base ← dest_mask_reg_id & ~1
> >> >
> >> > There is no requirement for even mask registers.
> >>
> >> But similarly there is
> >>
> >> src_base ← src_reg_id & ~3 // for src1 operand
> >>
> >> for the 4FMAPS instructions, and
> >>
> >> src_base ← src_reg_id & ~ (N-1) // for src1 operand
> >>
> >> for the 4VNNIW ones, and these get warned about. Let's be consistent
> >> with such warnings.
> >>
> >
> > Given that these register operands are well defined, I'd rather to remove
> > these warnings for 4FMAPS and 4VNNIW.
>
> Well, you're the maintainer, so I can't stop you, but I think these
> warnings are worthwhile to have. I agree the behavior is well
> defined, but I think using a "wrong" register is still potentially
> confusing.
>

I don't think it is the assembler's job to check for programmer's
intention.

-- 
H.J.