[PATCH 06/10] Support Intel RAO-INT

[Jan Beulich]

On 28.10.2022 10:31, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 4:22 PM
>>
>> On 28.10.2022 10:10, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>>> BTW, should the suffix instruction dependent? It might be more operand
>>> related from my opinion. If that is the truth, could we just judge
>>> whether we should add them when dealing with memory operands?
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying/asking here.
>> In any event - whether a suffix is required indeed depends on insn operands.
>> Yet even insns with (only) GPR operands _may_ use a suffix in AT&T mode,
>> irrespective of it being derivable from those GPR operands. We actually apply
>> consistency checks between registers used and the suffix (if present).
> 
> What I am saying is we could put all the suffix module out of instructions. If we
> found that are using those variable GPR operands, then to determine whether
> we should allow suffixes instead of determining at instructions.

Once again - even with GPR operands use of suffixes is permitted (and
actually kind of mandated by the only AT&T spec I'm aware of). You
may have seen the series that I have pending to re-work some of the
suffix recognition, but that's certainly not going in the direction
you're suggesting (if I understand what you're saying; perhaps if you
gave an example it might become more clear).

Jan