[PATCH 06/10] Support Intel RAO-INT

[Jan Beulich]

On 26.10.2022 07:16, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:01 PM
>>
>> On 24.10.2022 07:56, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 10:38 PM
>>>>
>>>> On 14.10.2022 11:12, Haochen Jiang wrote:
>>>>> +aadd, 0xf38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
>>>>>
>> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
>>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
>>>>> +aand, 0x660f38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
>>>>>
>> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
>>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
>>>>> +aor, 0xf20f38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
>>>>>
>> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
>>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
>>>>> +axor, 0xf30f38fc, None, CpuRAOINT,
>>>>>
>> +Modrm|IgnoreSize|No_bSuf|No_wSuf|No_sSuf|No_ldSuf,{ Reg32|Reg64,
>>>>> +Dword|Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex}
>>>>
>>>> Why IgnoreSize? Instead I think you need CheckRegSize (assuming it does
>>>> enough for Intel syntax memory operands - please double check; if not
>> this will
>>>> need fixing).
>>>>
>>>
>>> For table, we aligned with CMPccXADD and added No_lSuf and No_qSuf
>> since
>>> the suffixes are not required.
>>
>> Which, as said, I consider wrong both here and there.
> 
> I still agree with H.J.. Also I suppose the previous usage of suffixes are quite
> messy and we should not stick on the confusing code.
> 
> Keeping consistent with SPEC from now on to avoid confusion on that might
> be a better solution for future.

Same question to you then: Which spec? As said in reply to H.J., the only
spec I'm aware of suggests prefixes ought to be used _whenever_ there's a
sized memory operand [1]. If we want to deal with the present "mess", I
think we ought to simply allow suffixes consistently. Please point out any
other messy aspects beyond that.

Jan

[1] They further say "long" is implied when there's no suffix, which imo
gas validly doesn't follow in cases where a further register operand
indicates otherwise.