[PATCH] LoongArch: gas: Add LVZ and LBT instructions support

[WANG Xuerui]

Hi,

Upon closer look (while compiling the loongarch-opcodes data)...

On 2023/6/29 17:08, mengqinggang wrote:
> [snip]
> +
> +static struct loongarch_opcode loongarch_lbt_opcodes[] =
> +{
> +  /* match,    mask,       name,     format, macro, include, exclude, pinfo.  */
> +  [snip]
> +  {0x00368000, 0xffffc3e0, "setx86j", "r0:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00007800, 0xfffffc00, "setx86loope", "r0:5,r5:5", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00007c00, 0xfffffc00, "setx86loopne", "r0:5,r5:5", 0, 0, 0, 0},

These 3 instructions are named "setx86..." instead of the obvious 
"x86set...". This is especially inconsistent, because we even have...

> +  {0x005c0000, 0xfffc03e0, "x86mfflag", "r0:5,u10:8", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x005c0020, 0xfffc03e0, "x86mtflag", "r0:5,u10:8", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00007400, 0xffffffe0, "x86mftop", "r0:5", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00007000, 0xffffff1f, "x86mttop", "u5:3", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00008009, 0xffffffff, "x86inctop", "", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00008029, 0xffffffff, "x86dectop", "", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00008008, 0xffffffff, "x86settm", "", 0, 0, 0, 0},

This, which is "x86set...". We probably don't want "setx86" and "x86set" 
to co-exist, and the trivial fix would be adding "x86setj" "x86setloope" 
and "x86setloopne".

> +  {0x00008028, 0xffffffff, "x86clrtm", "", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00580000, 0xfffc0000, "x86settag", "r0:5,u5:5,u10:8", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00370010, 0xffff8010, "armadd.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00378010, 0xffff8010, "armsub.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00380010, 0xffff8010, "armadc.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00388010, 0xffff8010, "armsbc.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00390010, 0xffff8010, "armand.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00398010, 0xffff8010, "armor.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003a0010, 0xffff8010, "armxor.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003fc01c, 0xffffc01f, "armnot.w", "r5:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003a8010, 0xffff8010, "armsll.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003b0010, 0xffff8010, "armsrl.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003b8010, 0xffff8010, "armsra.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003c0010, 0xffff8010, "armrotr.w", "r5:5,r10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003c8010, 0xffff8010, "armslli.w", "r5:5,u10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003d0010, 0xffff8010, "armsrli.w", "r5:5,u10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003d8010, 0xffff8010, "armsrai.w", "r5:5,u10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003e0010, 0xffff8010, "armrotri.w", "r5:5,u10:5,u0:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003fc01f, 0xffffc01f, "armrrx.w", "r5:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x00364000, 0xffffc000, "armmove", "r0:5,r5:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003fc01d, 0xffffc01f, "armmov.w", "r5:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x003fc01e, 0xffffc01f, "armmov.d", "r5:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x005c0040, 0xfffc03e0, "armmfflag", "r0:5,u10:8", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x005c0060, 0xfffc03e0, "armmtflag", "r0:5,u10:8", 0, 0, 0, 0},
> +  {0x0036c000, 0xffffc3e0, "setarmj", "r0:5,u10:4", 0, 0, 0, 0},

Similarly here; "armsetj" would be more consistent with the rest.

Again, IMO it would be okay to temporarily keep the old names around for 
some time if you want too, but ideally new names should be added so 
surprise for users is minimized.