[PATCH 5/7] x86: re-work insn/suffix recognition

[Jan Beulich]

On 28.09.2022 21:33, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 5:49 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> I guess to prove (and going forward guarantee) the apparent behavior of
>> parse_insn() I'd like to constify its first parameter. This might
>> involve adding a cast (to drop const-ness again after the call), which
>> I generally would like to avoid, or some "interesting" pointer
>> arithmetic. If you have any opinion here up front, please let me know.
> 
> Can we avoid it by adding some new entries to the opcode table?
> I don't think we need many such entries.

I'm afraid I don't see the connection between the intended constification
and what entries there are (or not) in the opcode table. I view it as a
desirable property of the function in the first place to express its
behavior (of not altering the input string) by a pointer-to-const
parameter. In fact I guess I would make such an adjustment a standalone
(prereq for the larger change) patch.

Jan