[PATCH][v5] Support Intel USER_MSR

[Jan Beulich]

On 30.10.2023 06:50, Hu, Lin1 wrote:
>>> @@ -5232,8 +5244,23 @@ md_assemble (char *line)
>>>        && (t->mnem_off == MN_extrq || t->mnem_off == MN_insertq))
>>>        swap_2_operands (0, 1);
>>
>> Did you, btw, consider extending this to cater for UWRMSR as well, in place of
>> the new construct at the bottom of match_template()? (I'm not saying it needs
>> to be that way; if you decide to leave things as is, I may later see about folding
>> both.)
>>
> 
> For this part, my current changes are
> 
> @@ -5400,6 +5388,38 @@ md_assemble (char *line)
>        return;
>      }
> 
> +  /* The order of the immediates should be reversed
> +     for 2 immediates extrq and insertq instructions.
> +     And This pattern aims to put the unusually placed imm operand to a usual
> +     place. The constraints are currently only adapted to uwrmsr, and may
> +     need further tweaking when new similar instructions become available.  */
> +  if (i.imm_operands && i.imm_operands < i.operands
> +      && ((t->mnem_off == MN_extrq || t->mnem_off == MN_insertq)
> +         || operand_type_check (i.tm.operand_types[1], imm)))
> +    {
> +      i386_operand_type tmp_operand_type = i.tm.operand_types[0];
> +      i.tm.operand_types[0] = i.tm.operand_types[1];
> +      i.tm.operand_types[1] = tmp_operand_type;
> +      swap_2_operands(0, 1);
> +    }
> 
> after match_template. Some generalization has been reduced to save on code size.
> What's your opinion?

Hmm, why this way, rather than indeed merely extending (without moving)
what's there? (Anyway, as said, I'm not going to insist on this folding;
if you don't want to deal with that right here, I'll see to make a
follow-on change later.)

Jan