FW: [PATCH 3/8] Add tests for APX GPR32 with extend evex prefix

[Jan Beulich]

On 18.10.2023 13:26, Cui, Lili wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 4:06 PM
>>
>> On 18.10.2023 09:16, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>> On 18.10.2023 04:32, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-inval-movbe.s
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-inval-movbe.s
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>>>>>>>>  # Check illegal movbe in 64bit mode.
>>>>>>>>>  	.text
>>>>>>>>> +	.arch .noapx_f
>>>>>>>>>  foo:
>>>>>>>>>  	movbe	(%rcx),%bl
>>>>>>>>>  	movbe	%ecx,%ebx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't understand the need for this addition (and hence for the
>>>>>>>> need to change the test's expecations). Like was mentioned on the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> AVX10 series, tests like this shall not need modification, or
>>>>>>>> else it indicates people's code also may need ".arch .noapx_f"
>>>>>>>> additions, which I'm sure you agree may not be required. Finally,
>>>>>>>> if testcase expecations like the above would be needed anywhere,
>>>>>>>> please generalize them such that a similar mere addition of a
>>>>>>>> line doesn't require the entire test to be touched. Here this
>>>>>>>> means that while for the diagnostics you of course want exact
>>>>>>>> line number matches, for the actual listing line numbers don't
>>>>>>>> don't need matching
>>>> individually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree with you, but movbe is special, movbe didn't support reg to
>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>> before, but APX enable it. so I added .arch .noapx_f for this invalid test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be honest I didn't really notice this difference so far. That's
>>>>>> somewhat ugly, because people mistakenly using a reg->reg form
>>>>>> would suddenly get an EVEX encoding rather than an error. This will
>>>>>> need some further thought; please mention the "anomaly" explicitly
>>>>>> in the
>>>> description of the respective patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>> SPEC:
>>>>> Note: The promoted versions of MOVBE will be extended to include the
>>>>> “MOVBE reg1, reg2” form (namely, the ModRM.Mod = 3 case) for both
>>>>> opcodes 0xF0 and 0xF1. This extension makes the promotion of BSWAP
>>>>> for
>>>> NDD support unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll add a description of movbe to the patch 2/8 changelog.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I did deduce the connection to BSWAP on the way home yesterday.
>>>> Which made me come up with a (spec) question: Wouldn't it make sense
>>>> to name these
>>>> reg->reg forms BSWAP, not MOVBE? It doesn't really matter that they
>>>> reg->use the
>>>> same encoding as the MOVBE (then mem-only) forms. That would then
>>>> eliminate the concern I raised.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we extend BSWAP, it needs to add the operation of reading ModRM.Mod. I
>> think this is the benefit of this solution now.
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't follow: I don't propose extending the original BSWAP.
>> I merely propose to use the BSWAP mnemonic with the reg->reg form of
>> what's presently called MOVBE. (As an aside, in principle no ModR/M byte
>> would be needed to extend the original BSWAP: One operand is encoded in
>> the base opcode, and the other could be encoded in VVVV. But that would of
>> course needlessly consume an entire row in the opcode table. Hence why I
>> fully understand that the opcode wants sharing with MOVBE.)
>>
> 
> I think it's a trade-off between functionality closer to BSWAP and opcode closer to MOVBE. Since the spec was published and gcc has committed the patch to the community, I think it would be hard to push it to change.

In which case I wonder how one could influence such decisions, when the first
publication of such a spec already means things are set in stone. I was hoping
that only inclusion in the SDM would mean no (easy) changes anymore.

Jan