[PATCH 7/8] Support APX NF

[Jan Beulich]

On 19.09.2023 17:25, Cui, Lili wrote:

(Only peeking ahead; not a full review.)

> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-ndd.d
> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-ndd.d
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
>  \s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*67 62 f4 3c 18 4f 90 90 90 90 90 	cmovg  -0x6f6f6f70\(%eax\),%edx,%r8d
>  \s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*67 62 f4 3c 18 af 90 09 09 09 00 	imul   0x90909\(%eax\),%edx,%r8d
>  \s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 b4 b0 10 af 94 f8 09 09 00 00 	imul   0x909\(%rax,%r31,8\),%rdx,%r25
> -\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 fc 08 ff c0\s+inc    %rax
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 fc 08 ff c0\s+\{evex\} inc %rax
>  \s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 ec\s+\(bad\)
>  \s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*08 ff\s+or     %bh,%bh
>  \s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*c0\s+\.byte 0xc0

I don't think this change belongs here?

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-nf-intel.d
> @@ -0,0 +1,633 @@
> +#as:
> +#objdump: -dw -Mintel
> +#name: x86_64 APX_F insns (Intel disassembly)
> +#source: x86-64-apx-nf.s
> +
> +.*: +file format .*
> +
> +Disassembly of section \.text:
> +
> +0+ <_start>:
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 7c 0c 80 c3 7b\s+\{nf\} add bl,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 6c 1c 80 c3 7b\s+\{nf\} add dl,bl,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 7d 0c 83 c2 7b\s+\{nf\} add dx,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 7d 1c 83 c2 7b\s+\{nf\} add ax,dx,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 7c 0c 83 c1 7b\s+\{nf\} add ecx,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 f4 6c 1c 83 c1 7b\s+\{nf\} add edx,ecx,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 d4 fc 0c 83 c1 7b\s+\{nf\} add r9,0x7b
> +\s*[a-f0-9]+:\s*62 d4 84 14 83 c1 7b\s+\{nf\} add r31,r9,0x7b

How was this notation established? Is it aligned with what other
(dis)assemblers (will) do? Following the doc, I was rather expecting
this to be a new kind-of-suffix: "add{nf} ...".

Jan