[PATCH V2 3/8] Support APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix

[Jan Beulich]

On 15.11.2023 12:43, Cui, Lili wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 5:12 PM
>>
>> On 15.11.2023 07:03, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/opcodes/i386-dis-evex-x86-64.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
>>>>> +  /* X86_64_EVEX_0F3849 */
>>>>> +  {
>>>>> +    { Bad_Opcode },
>>>>> +    { VEX_LEN_TABLE (VEX_LEN_0F3849_X86_64) },  },
>>>>> +  /* X86_64_EVEX_0F384B */
>>>>> +  {
>>>>> +    { Bad_Opcode },
>>>>> +    { VEX_LEN_TABLE (VEX_LEN_0F384B_X86_64) },  },
>>>>> +  /* X86_64_EVEX_0F38E0 */
>>>>> +  {
>>>>> +    { Bad_Opcode },
>>>>> +    { "cmpoxadd", { Mdq, Gdq, VexGdq }, PREFIX_DATA },  },
>>>>
>>>> This and its sibling entries look to again fully match
>> X86_64_VEX_0F38E<n>.
>>>
>>> It cannot be moved to up level, it needs to go through
>>> i386-dis-evex-x86-64.h
>>
>> I didn't suggest to move up a level. I suggested to re-use the existing VEX
>> entries.
>>
> 
> It's currently in the x86-64 table, it's a bit weird to revisit the x86-64 table, and moving up one level won't work.
> 
> { X86_64_TABLE (X86_64_VEX_0F38E0) }
> 
>   /* X86_64_VEX_0F38E0 */
>   {
>     { Bad_Opcode },
>     { "cmpoxadd", { Mdq, Gdq, VexGdq }, PREFIX_DATA },
>   },

Again - I never suggested to move up a level. I also didn't suggest to
re-visit x86_64_table[]. I merely requested to re-use X86_64_VEX_0F38Ex
in the evex_table[] entries, instead of adding 16 (each) identical new
entries to x86_64_table[] with 16 new X86_64_EVEX_0F38Ex enumerators.

Jan