Enable Intel AVX512_FP16 instructions and test

[Jan Beulich]

On 05.08.2021 13:54, Cui, Lili wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 11:33 PM
>> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
>> Cc: hjl.tools@gmail.com; binutils@sourceware.org
>> Subject: Re: Enable Intel AVX512_FP16 instructions and test
>>
>> On 04.08.2021 16:40, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:23 PM
>>>>
>>>> On 30.07.2021 11:00, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>>> Rebased AVX512-FP16 patch and added error checking for some
>>>>> instructions that require different destination and source registers
>>>>
>>>> I can't seem to be able to spot respective disassembler changes? (I
>>>> have to also admit that the restriction is quite well hidden in the
>>>> spec - there's no mention of it except in the "Additionally:"
>>>> sections. I'd have expected such special cases to be mentioned in
>>>> "Operation" as well.)
>>>>
>>> Add distinct register check for disassembler and also add test case for it,
>> thanks.
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure a new insn attribute is warranted here (iirc you got
>>>> away without for the AMX special restrictions), but I also don't
>>>> really want to request that you redo this. What I would like to see
>>>> improved though is the
>>>> name: It would better express that it's the destination that needs to
>>>> be distinct (unlike for the AMX insns, where all registers need to be
>> distinct).
>>>> Also the error message wording "destination and source registers must
>>>> be distinct" is ambiguous (one may read it to mean the same as what
>>>> the AMX requirement is). I'd suggest "destination must be distinct
>>>> from source registers".
>>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Hmm, I see you've changed the message (which, seeing it again, is still
>> ambiguous I'm afraid), but you've kept the field name.
>>
> How about ReqDistinctDest ?

Quite a bit better, yes. Perhaps even drop the "Req" part of it?

>> As to the message (I'm sorry for adjusting my prior suggestion), how about
>> "destination must be distinct from source registers"?
>>
> I am confused here, do I need to make some changes ?

Well - use the new suggested text?

Jan