[PATCH v2 1/4] x86: zap value-less Disp8MemShift from non-EVEX templates
Cui, Lili
lili.cui@intel.com
Wed Apr 24 13:15:58 GMT 2024
> On 24.04.2024 08:49, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >> In order to allow to continue to use templatized SSE2AVX templates
> >> when enhancing those to also cover eGPR usage, Disp8MemShift wants
> >> using to deviate from what general template attributes supply. That
> >> requires using Disp8MemShift in a way also affecting non-EVEX
> >> templates, yet having this attribute set would so far implicitly mean EVEX
> encoding.
> >> Recognize the case and instead zap the attribute if no other
> >> attribute indicates EVEX encoding.
> >>
> >
> > I'm confused about this patch, is it related to the movsd template? You
> removed the "Masking" for it and only left Disp8MemShift, but I thought it
> still belongs to EVEX template.
> >
> > +movsd, 0xf210, AVX512F,
> > +D|Modrm|EVexLIG|Space0F|VexW1|Disp8MemShift=3|NoSuf|SSE2AVX,
> {
> > +Qword|Unspecified|BaseIndex, RegXMM }
>
> There's no "masking" in an SSE2AVX template. Use of masking in a legacy-
> form input instruction is simply wrong, and wants rejecting.
>
Is this patch intended to fix the following situation? If not, could you give an example?
<sse41:cpu:attr:scal:vvvv, $avx:AVX:Vex128|VexW0|SSE2AVX:VexLIG|VexW0|SSE2AVX:VexVVVV, $sse:SSE4_1:::>
+<SSE41D:cpu:attr:scal:vvvv, +
+ $avx:AVX|AVX512VL:Vex128|EVex128|VexW0|Disp8MemShift=4|SSE2AVX:VexLIG|EVexLIG|VexW0|Disp8MemShift=2|SSE2AVX:VexVVVV, +
+ $sse:SSE4_1:::>
-insertps<sse41>, 0x660f3a21, <sse41:cpu>, Modrm|<sse41:attr>|<sse41:vvvv>|NoSuf, { Imm8, Dword|Unspecified|BaseIndex|RegXMM, RegXMM }
+insertps<SSE41D>, 0x660f3a21, <SSE41D:cpu>, Modrm|<SSE41D:attr>|<SSE41D:vvvv>|Disp8MemShift|NoSuf, { Imm8, Dword|Unspecified|BaseIndex|RegXMM, RegXMM }
I'm confused why the Disp8MemShift is added here.
> >> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> >> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> >> @@ -1126,6 +1126,7 @@ process_i386_opcode_modifier (FILE *tabl
> >> char **opnd, int lineno, bool rex2_disallowed) {
> >> char *str, *next, *last;
> >> + bool disp8_shift_derived = false;
> >> bitfield modifiers [ARRAY_SIZE (opcode_modifiers)];
> >> static const char *const spaces[] = { #define SPACE(n)
> >> [SPACE_##n] = #n @@ -1190,7 +1191,10 @@
> process_i386_opcode_modifier (FILE *tabl
> >> if (strcasecmp(str, "Broadcast") == 0)
> >> val = get_element_size (opnd, lineno) + BYTE_BROADCAST;
> >> else if (strcasecmp(str, "Disp8MemShift") == 0)
> >> - val = get_element_size (opnd, lineno);
> >> + {
> >> + val = get_element_size (opnd, lineno);
> >> + disp8_shift_derived = true;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> set_bitfield (str, modifiers, val, ARRAY_SIZE (modifiers),
> >> lineno);
> >> @@ -1243,13 +1247,21 @@ process_i386_opcode_modifier (FILE *tabl
> >>
> >> /* Rather than evaluating multiple conditions at runtime to determine
> >> whether an EVEX encoding is being dealt with, derive that information
> >> - right here. A missing EVex attribute means "dynamic". */
> >> - if (!modifiers[EVex].value
> >> - && (modifiers[Disp8MemShift].value
> >> - || modifiers[Broadcast].value
> >> + right here. A missing EVex attribute means "dynamic". There's one
> >> + exception though: A value-less Disp8MemShift needs zapping rather
> than
> >> + respecting if no other attribute indicates EVEX encoding. This is for
> >> + certain SSE2AVX templatized templates to work reasonably. */
> >> + if
> >> + (!modifiers[EVex].value)
> >> + {
> >> + if (modifiers[Broadcast].value
> >> || modifiers[Masking].value
> >> - || modifiers[SAE].value))
> >> - modifiers[EVex].value = EVEXDYN;
> >> + || modifiers[SAE].value)
> >> + modifiers[EVex].value = EVEXDYN;
> >> + else if (disp8_shift_derived)
> >> + modifiers[Disp8MemShift].value = 0;
> >> + else if (modifiers[Disp8MemShift].value)
> >> + modifiers[EVex].value = EVEXDYN;
> >> + }
> >>
> >
> > Why not just delete the Disp8MemShift? Maybe I missed something.
> >
> > if (!modifiers[EVex].value
> > && (modifiers[Broadcast].value
> > || modifiers[Masking].value
> > || modifiers[SAE].value))
> > modifiers[EVex].value = EVEXDYN;
>
> There are templates where Disp8MemShift is the only indication of EVEX
> encoding, e.g. VMOVNTDQ and VMOVNTDQA. Those could all gain EVexDYN
> (I think), but that would be a somewhat more intrusive change then. I'm
> willing to be convinced of going that route (assuming it actually would work
> out).
>
Oh, got it, they still need Disp8MemShift for EVEX, that makes sense.
Lili.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list