[PATCH v3 8/9] Support APX NDD optimized encoding.

[Hu, Lin1]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:19 PM
> To: Hu, Lin1 <lin1.hu@intel.com>
> Cc: Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>; binutils@sourceware.org; Cui, Lili
> <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] Support APX NDD optimized encoding.
> 
> On 13.12.2023 07:06, Hu, Lin1 wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:46 PM
> >> To: Hu, Lin1 <lin1.hu@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>; binutils@sourceware.org; Cui,
> >> Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] Support APX NDD optimized encoding.
> >>
> >> On 12.12.2023 04:18, Hu, Lin1 wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:28 PM
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24.11.2023 08:02, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >>>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
> >>>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
> >>>>> @@ -7148,6 +7148,58 @@ check_APX_operands (const insn_template *t)
> >>>>>    return 0;
> >>>>>  }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +/* Check if the instruction use the REX registers.  */ static
> >>>>> +bool check_RexOperands () {
> >>>>> +  for (unsigned int op = 0; op < i.operands; op++)
> >>>>> +    {
> >>>>> +      if (i.types[op].bitfield.class != Reg)
> >>>>> +	continue;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +      if (i.op[op].regs->reg_flags & (RegRex | RegRex64))
> >>>>> +	return true;
> >>>>> +    }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +  if ((i.index_reg && (i.index_reg->reg_flags & (RegRex | RegRex64)))
> >>>>> +      || (i.base_reg && (i.base_reg->reg_flags & (RegRex | RegRex64))))
> >>>>> +    return true;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +  /* Check pseudo prefix {rex} are valid.  */  return
> >>>>> + i.rex_encoding;
> >>>>
> >>>> Can this actually happen, when we're converting from EVEX to legacy?
> >>>> (Initially I wanted to ask about "rex" and alike prefixes, i.e. the
> >>>> non- pseudo
> >>>> ones.)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This is to align with check_EgprOperands. I hope the function be more
> general.
> >> Not just for this optimization problem.
> >>
> >> But then the comment shouldn't say "REX registers", and "Operands" in
> >> its name isn't quite right either.
> >>
> >> Also you want to make the function be a proper modern declaration, by
> >> adding "void" between the parentheses.
> >>
> >
> > I have modified the comment like " Check if the instruction use the REX
> registers or REX prefix." And function name is check_RexOperands_or_RexPrefix.
> 
> How about check_Rex_required() or is_rex_required() or some such? No need to
> have two "Rex" in a single name.
> 

OK, thanks for your advice, Have modified to check_Rex_required().

BRs,
Lin