[PATCH 0/6] x86: misc testsuite reverts plus fallout thereof

[H.J. Lu]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 9:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 17.07.2020 17:55, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:40 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17.07.2020 16:29, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Over time a number of choices I've made in testcases have been
> >>>> "corrected", because of causing problems for certain targets.
> >>>> The underlying issues, however, were never investigated. I've
> >>>> finally taken the time to do so in two of the cases, which
> >>>> interestingly has lead to fixing long-standing yet at the first
> >>>> glance unrelated bugs (or shortcomings, if you like).
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that patch 5 is a change to common gas code; I'll try to
> >>>> remember to Cc a few presumably relevant people when sending
> >>>> out that one.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1: x86: enable more ELF tests for VxWorks
> >>>> 2: Revert "x86: Replace evex-no-scale.s with evex-no-scale-[32|64].s"
> >>>> 3: x86: honor absolute section when emitting code
> >>>> 4: x86: revert ELF related part of "x86: Update assembler tests for non-ELF targets"
> >>>
> >>> Can you merge patches 2 and 4 into a single commit since they
> >>> change the same file?
> >>
> >> I could, but this being unrelated changes I'd prefer to keep them
> >> separate. Let me know if you really think merging is helpful here.
> >
> > Because I expect they will/can be applied back to back.
>
> But you realize that patch 4 functionally depends on patch 3?
> It also would seem better to me for a revert to really be a
> revert - when I fold both, I will need to invent different
> titles (likely making the revert character of the changes
> less obvious) and probably massage the then folded description.
>

Can you do

1
3
2+4

-- 
H.J.