[PATCH 0/5] x86/Intel: AVX512 syntax enhancements

[Cui, Lili]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:00 PM
> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Cc: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>; Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86/Intel: AVX512 syntax enhancements
> 
> > 1. If we use BCST instead {1to*}, it cannot directly reflect the broadcast
> number. When the register size is zmm, but broadcast number is not the
> same.
> >
> > -[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:[   ]*62 f5 54 58 58 31[     ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,WORD PTR
> \[ecx\]\{1to32\}
> > +[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:[   ]*62 f5 54 58 58 31[     ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,WORD
> BCST \[ecx\]
> >
> > -[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:[   ]*62 65 7d df 5b 72 80[          ]*vcvtph2dq
> zmm30\{k7\}\{z\},WORD PTR \[rdx-0x100\]\{1to16\}
> > +[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:[   ]*62 65 7d df 5b 72 80[          ]*vcvtph2dq
> zmm30\{k7\}\{z\},WORD BCST \[rdx-0x100\]
> 
> This case is clearly disambiguated by the destination register.
> What I think you're worried about are conversions where the field size
> shrinks (e.g. from 32 bits to 16 bits, like in vcvtdq2ph). In this case you will
> note that for the purpose of keeping things unambiguous the disassembler
> will continue to emit {1to<N>}, and the assembler will continue to require
> that extra bit of information.
> 

The format of appending {1to<N>} for vcvtdq2ph special case is great. 
There is no ambiguity for the format of vcvtph2dq zmm30{k7}{z},WORD BCST [rdx-0x100], but we cannot direct know the N ({1to<N>}) for this BCST format, although we can confirm it with the SDM. I just trying to say for the first impression, BAST format has this disadvantage.

> > 2. Just remove the last comma, it's ok for me, I remember FP16 has an
> instruction with {sae} on the middle position for the ATT format. But the intel
> format is placed at the end, I don't know if there is any problem.
> >
> > -[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:[   ]*62 f5 54 18 58 f4[     ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,zmm4,\{rn-
> sae\}
> > +[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:[   ]*62 f5 54 18 58 f4[     ]*vaddph zmm6,zmm5,zmm4\{rn-
> sae\}
> >
> > FP16:
> > vcvtusi2sh %edx, {rn-sae}, %xmm29, %xmm30 vcvtusi2sh
> > xmm6,xmm5,edx\{rn-sae\}
> 
> Well, yes, this is not only not a problem, but intended. See how the SDM
> places the rounding/SAE modifiers. It's also not FP16-specific in any way.
> 

Yes, SDM put the rounding/SAE behind the last register operand, if the last operand is immediate, it will put rounding/SAE before the immediate. But I don't quite understand why ATT format put it after %edx instead of before.

> > 3. This can reduce the  templates size, it is good to me.
> +Modrm|EVexLIG|Masking=3|EVexMap5|VexVVVV|VexW0|Disp8MemShift
> =1|No_bSu
> > +f|No_wSuf|No_lSuf|No_sSuf|No_qSuf|No_ldSuf|StaticRounding|SAE, {
> > +RegXMM|Word|Unspecified|BaseIndex, RegXMM, RegXMM }
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to tell me here.
> Are you asking for some kind of change to be made to the patch(es)?

Please ignore it, no changes are required here, it's ok.

Thanks, 
Lili.