[PATCH V5] Support APX NF

[Jan Beulich]

On 01.04.2024 08:24, Cui, Lili wrote:
> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-evex-promoted-bad.d
> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-evex-promoted-bad.d
> @@ -21,14 +21,12 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 fc 7d[ 	]+\(bad\).*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+28 60 c7[ 	]+.*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 fc 7d[ 	]+\(bad\).*
> -[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+8f[ 	]+\(bad\)
> -[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+60[ 	]+\(bad\)
> -[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+c7[ 	]+\(bad\)
> +[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+8b 60 c7[ 	]+.*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 f2 fc 09 f5[ 	]+\(bad\).*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+0c 18[ 	]+or.*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 f2 fc 28 f5[ 	]+\(bad\)
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+0c 18[ 	]+or.*
> -[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 f2 fc 8f f5[ 	]+\(bad\).*
> +[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 f2 fc 8b f5[ 	]+\(bad\).*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+0c 18[ 	]+or.*
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 f2 fc 18 f5[ 	]+\(bad\)
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+0c 18[ 	]+or.*
> @@ -43,4 +41,5 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 e4 7e 08 dc 20[ 	]+aesenc128kl \(%rax\),%xmm20\(bad\)
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 b4 7c 08 d9 c4[ 	]+sha1msg1 %xmm20\(bad\),%xmm0
>  [ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 e4 7c 08 d9 20[ 	]+sha1msg1 \(%rax\),%xmm20\(bad\)
> +[ 	]*[a-f0-9]+:[ 	]+62 fc 7d 0c 60 c7[ 	]+movbe  \{bad\-nf\},%r23w,%ax

A dash doesn't need escaping, does it?

Okay with this either clarified verbally, or adjusted.

> @@ -9600,6 +9605,15 @@ print_insn (bfd_vma pc, disassemble_info *info, int intel_syntax)
>  	  && ins.vex.prefix == DATA_PREFIX_OPCODE)
>  	sizeflag ^= DFLAG;
>  
> +      if(ins.evex_type == evex_default)
> +	ins.vex.nf = false;
> +      else
> +	/* For EVEX-promoted formats, we need to clear EVEX.NF (For ccmp and
> +	   ctest, they will be cleared separately.) in mask_register_specifier
> +	   and keep the low 2 bits of mask_register_specifier to report errors
> +	   for invalid cases.*/
> +	ins.vex.mask_register_specifier &= 0x3;

Just as a remark: "will be" in the comment is liable to need updating once
that code is actually added. Please make yourself a note to check that, as
it'll be close to impossible to spot while reviewing.

Also, as another general remark: Please may I remind you to help review by
making available a brief revision log, relative to at least the immediate
earlier patch version? While you have "Rebased nf patch with master" at the
very top, that neither belongs there, nor is it (imo) really describing what
changes you have done.

Jan