[PATCH v3 4/9] Support APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix

[Cui, Lili]

> >> On 24.11.2023 08:02, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >>> @@ -3670,10 +3673,11 @@ install_template (const insn_template *t)
> >>>
> >>>    /* Dual VEX/EVEX templates need stripping one of the possible
> variants.  */
> >>>    if (t->opcode_modifier.vex && t->opcode_modifier.evex)
> >>> -  {
> >>> -      if ((maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX) || maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX2)
> >>> -	   || maybe_cpu (t, CpuFMA))
> >>> -	  && (maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX512F) || maybe_cpu (t, CpuAVX512VL)))
> >>> +    {
> >>> +      if (AVX512F(CpuAVX) || AVX512F(CpuAVX2) || AVX512F(CpuFMA)
> >>> +	  || AVX512VL(CpuAVX) || AVX512VL(CpuAVX2) ||
> >> APX_F(CpuCMPCCXADD)
> >>> +	  || APX_F(CpuAMX_TILE) || APX_F(CpuAVX512F) ||
> >> APX_F(CpuAVX512DQ)
> >>> +	  || APX_F(CpuAVX512BW) || APX_F(CpuBMI) || APX_F(CpuBMI2))
> >>>  	{
> >>>  	  if (need_evex_encoding ())
> >>
> >> There are several issues here:
> >> - Why did you need to change (to the worse) the original code?
> >> - Why did you not model the addition after that original code?
> >> - How come APX_F (CpuAVX512*) constructs appear here, when no
> AVX512
> >> insn can be VEX-encoded?
> >
> >  I don't understand what you mean, we have this combination.
> >
> > kmov<dq>, 0x<dq:kpfx>90, AVX512BW&(AVX512BW|APX_F),
> > Modrm|Vex128|EVex128|Space0F|VexW1|<dq:kvsz>|NoSuf, {
> > RegMask|<dq:elem>|Unspecified|BaseIndex, RegMask }
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry: I forgot about the mask register insns.
> 
> >> - If these new macros are really needed for whatever reason, they
> shouldn't
> >>   be added to opcodes/i386-opc.h when they're useful only in the
> assembler.
> >> - Style requires a blank before the opening parenthesis in function
> >>   invocations (which also covers function-like macro invocations).
> >>
> >> I think I asked before: How is it that you get away without altering
> >> cpu_flags_match(), containing related and quite similar logic?
> >>
> >
> > For the original logic ( ... || ... ) && ( ... || ...), the content in the first bracket
> and the content in the following brackets can be combined arbitrarily. I think
> it is Inaccurate.
> 
> In which way? If there are issues with the existing code, these issues want
> taking care of in separate (prereq) patches. Of course there are assumptions
> made here about the CPU combinations that can (and cannot) occur in any of
> our templates. Similar assumptions are imo fine to make in the APX additions.
> 
> Note how I used two nested if()s despite that not having been necessary at
> that time. I did so in anticipation that for APX you'd want to add another
> (separate) inner if(), rather than altering the one that's there.
> 
Hi Jan, 

Could we remove the CPU check here? it's a bit ugly and has limited effectiveness.

  if (t->opcode_modifier.vex && t->opcode_modifier.evex)
    {
      if (AVX512F(CpuAVX) || AVX512F(CpuAVX2) || AVX512F(CpuFMA)
          || AVX512VL(CpuAVX) || AVX512VL(CpuAVX2) || APX_F(CpuCMPCCXADD)
          || APX_F(CpuAMX_TILE) || APX_F(CpuAVX512F) || APX_F(CpuAVX512DQ)
          || APX_F(CpuAVX512BW) || APX_F(CpuBMI) || APX_F(CpuBMI2))


> > So I give examples one by one for each identified combination.
> 
> Which examples are you talking about? I see none given in your reply.
> 

Sorry, I want to say "I've listed every possible combination".

> > Just found cpu_flags_match() has similar logic, I think the following is the
> only code related to CPUID alerts, but none of our combinations are related
> to cpuavx.
> >
> >           if (all.bitfield.cpuavx)
> >             {
> >               /* We need to check SSE2AVX with AVX.  */
> >               if (!t->opcode_modifier.sse2avx
> >                   || (sse2avx && !i.prefix[DATA_PREFIX]))
> >                 match |= CPU_FLAGS_ARCH_MATCH;
> >             }
> 
> Not sure why you pick out this one. This special case is needed for sse2avx; I
> don't see how it's related here. What I've been pointing you at is the code in
> that function which follows a similar "Dual VEX/EVEX templates ..."
> comment.
> 

I know you're talking about this code, I'm just guessing what it does? Don't know what I missed.

For example 

.arch .nobmi
andn    (%eax), %eax, %eax

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  if (flag_code != CODE_64BIT)
    active = cpu_flags_and_not (cpu_arch_flags, cpu_64_flags);
  else
    active = cpu_arch_flags;                   ---> cpubmi = 0;
  cpu = cpu_flags_and (all, active);      ---> cpuapx =1; cpubmi = 0;
  if (cpu_flags_equal (&cpu, &all))       ---> &cpu and &all are not same.
    {
    ...
    }    
Return  CPU_FLAGS_64BIT_MATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we will report an arch error.

          if (supported != CPU_FLAGS_PERFECT_MATCH)
            {
              as_bad (_("`%s' is not supported on `%s%s'"),
                      insn_name (current_templates.start),
                      cpu_arch_name ? cpu_arch_name : default_arch,
                      cpu_sub_arch_name ? cpu_sub_arch_name : "");
              return NULL;
            }

Thanks,
Lili.