[PATCH 4/5] x86-64: Intel64 adjustments for conditional jumps

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:20 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 14.07.2020 14:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 14.07.2020 14:00, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:13 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/opcode-suffix.d
> >>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/opcode-suffix.d
> >>> @@ -305,22 +305,22 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
> >>>   *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 77[  ]+emms[         ]+
> >>>   *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 7e 90 90 90 90 90[   ]+movd[         ]+%mm2,-0x6f6f6f70\(%eax\)
> >>>   *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 7f 90 90 90 90 90[   ]+movq[         ]+%mm2,-0x6f6f6f70\(%eax\)
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 80 90 90 90 90[      ]+jo[   ]+909094e2 <foo\+0x909094e2>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 81 90 90 90 90[      ]+jno[  ]+909094e8 <foo\+0x909094e8>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 82 90 90 90 90[      ]+jb[   ]+909094ee <foo\+0x909094ee>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 83 90 90 90 90[      ]+jae[  ]+909094f4 <foo\+0x909094f4>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 84 90 90 90 90[      ]+je[   ]+909094fa <foo\+0x909094fa>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 85 90 90 90 90[      ]+jne[  ]+90909500 <foo\+0x90909500>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 86 90 90 90 90[      ]+jbe[  ]+90909506 <foo\+0x90909506>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 87 90 90 90 90[      ]+ja[   ]+9090950c <foo\+0x9090950c>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 88 90 90 90 90[      ]+js[   ]+90909512 <foo\+0x90909512>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 89 90 90 90 90[      ]+jns[  ]+90909518 <foo\+0x90909518>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8a 90 90 90 90[      ]+jp[   ]+9090951e <foo\+0x9090951e>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8b 90 90 90 90[      ]+jnp[  ]+90909524 <foo\+0x90909524>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8c 90 90 90 90[      ]+jl[   ]+9090952a <foo\+0x9090952a>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8d 90 90 90 90[      ]+jge[  ]+90909530 <foo\+0x90909530>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8e 90 90 90 90[      ]+jle[  ]+90909536 <foo\+0x90909536>
> >>> - *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8f 90 90 90 90[      ]+jg[   ]+9090953c <foo\+0x9090953c>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 80 90 90 90 90[      ]+jol[  ]+909094e2 <foo\+0x909094e2>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 81 90 90 90 90[      ]+jnol[         ]+909094e8 <foo\+0x909094e8>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 82 90 90 90 90[      ]+jbl[  ]+909094ee <foo\+0x909094ee>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 83 90 90 90 90[      ]+jael[         ]+909094f4 <foo\+0x909094f4>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 84 90 90 90 90[      ]+jel[  ]+909094fa <foo\+0x909094fa>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 85 90 90 90 90[      ]+jnel[         ]+90909500 <foo\+0x90909500>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 86 90 90 90 90[      ]+jbel[         ]+90909506 <foo\+0x90909506>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 87 90 90 90 90[      ]+jal[  ]+9090950c <foo\+0x9090950c>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 88 90 90 90 90[      ]+jsl[  ]+90909512 <foo\+0x90909512>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 89 90 90 90 90[      ]+jnsl[         ]+90909518 <foo\+0x90909518>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8a 90 90 90 90[      ]+jpl[  ]+9090951e <foo\+0x9090951e>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8b 90 90 90 90[      ]+jnpl[         ]+90909524 <foo\+0x90909524>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8c 90 90 90 90[      ]+jll[  ]+9090952a <foo\+0x9090952a>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8d 90 90 90 90[      ]+jgel[         ]+90909530 <foo\+0x90909530>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8e 90 90 90 90[      ]+jlel[         ]+90909536 <foo\+0x90909536>
> >>> + *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 8f 90 90 90 90[      ]+jgl[  ]+9090953c <foo\+0x9090953c>
> >>>   *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 90 80 90 90 90 90[   ]+seto[         ]+-0x6f6f6f70\(%eax\)
> >>>   *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 91 80 90 90 90 90[   ]+setno[        ]+-0x6f6f6f70\(%eax\)
> >>>   *[0-9a-f]+:   0f 92 80 90 90 90 90[   ]+setb[         ]+-0x6f6f6f70\(%eax\)
> >>
> >> There are instructions like jl and jnl.  Will assembler properly
> >> handle `l' as a suffix here?
> >
> > j<cc> as well as jmp (with displacement) have No_lSuf set, so won't
> > accept l suffixes (same for the w one). Nevertheless already prior
> > to this change the disassembler will produce "jmpl" (and "jmpw").
> > IOW a disagreement between disassembler and assembler already exists.

We should avoid it as much as we can.

> >> If we do need to distinguish them, can we generate {disp32} pseudo prefix
> >> instead?
> >
> > We could, but then consistently for Jcc, JMP, and CALL. But how is
> > emitting a pseudo-prefix in line with the name of the controlling
> > command line option "-Msuffix"?

That works for me.

> FAOD to achieve consistency I think the preferred route would then
> be for the assembler to accept l and w suffixes for Jcc and JMP.
> Not sure though what fallout this may mean.

That could be quite messy.  I think pseudo prefix is much less invasive.

-- 
H.J.