[PATCH RESEND v2] Aarch64: Allow explicit size specifier for predicate operand of {sq, uq, }{incp, decp}

[Jan Beulich]

On 10.03.2022 10:38, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
> Hi Jan,

Despite this, ...

> On 2022/3/2 15:36, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
>> On 2022/2/21 21:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.02.2022 01:53, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
>>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/sve-movprfx_23.d
>>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/sve-movprfx_23.d
>>>> @@ -9,29 +9,29 @@ Disassembly of section .*:
>>>>  
>>>>  0+ <.*>:
>>>>  [^:]+:	04512461 	movprfx	z1.h, p1/m, z3.h
>>>> -[^:]+:	256c8021 	incp	z1.h, p1  // note: merging predicate expected due to preceding `movprfx' at operand 2
>>>> +[^:]+:	256c8021 	incp	z1.h, p1.h  // note: merging predicate expected due to preceding `movprfx' at operand 2
>>>
>>> I have a more general question here: Couldn't the spec make optional the
>>> use of all the same size specifiers when there are multiple, same element
>>> size operands? One such suffix of course needs to be there to disambiguate
>>
>> We are not from ARM SPEC group and don't know the exact considerations for
>> the forbidden omitting suffix. We guess people will have different answers from
>> different points of view.
>>
>> >From our point of view,  a suffix makes the assembly more consistent with the
>> scalar versions of `incp`, e.g. `incp x1, p2.b`. And the predicate register acts more
>> like a vector register within this instruction, with suffix, the addend for each element
>> is clear once reading the assembly string.
>>
>> Not sure that anyone from ARM in the mail-list can give more hints or thoughts.
>>
> 
> No any more comments from Arm guys.
> 
> Is it ok for trunk?

... I assume you understand that I'm not in the position to give you the
wanted "okay"?

Jan