[PATCH 2/4] x86/APX: respect {vex}/{vex3}

[Michael Matz]

Hello,

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:

> On 20.02.2024 11:12, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >> On 18.02.2024 08:55, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-egpr-inval.s
> >>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-egpr-inval.s
> >>>> @@ -207,3 +207,13 @@
> >>>>  	vtestpd (%r27),%ymm6
> >>>>  	vtestps (%r27),%xmm6
> >>>>  	vtestps (%r27),%ymm6
> >>>> +# {vex}
> >>>> +	{vex} and %eax, %eax
> >>>> +	{vex} and %r8, %r8
> >>>> +	{vex} and %r16, %r16
> >>>> +	{vex} and %eax, %eax, %eax
> >>>> +	{vex} and %r8, %r8, %r8
> >>>> +	{vex} and %r16, %r16, %r16
> >>>> +	{vex} andn %eax, %eax, %eax
> >>>> +	{vex} andn %r8, %r8, %r8
> >>>
> >>> These two test cases are valid.
> >>
> >> ... reflects exactly this fact.
> >>
> > 
> > Normally we don't put valid test cases into invalid test case file, right?
> 
> Depends, I would say (and I think you'll find other examples). I view it as
> pretty relevant here.

I think the test filename should be different then, also for other cases 
where this is the case.  That, or at least a comment next to the insns 
that those are _not_ invalid (referring to the .d file to see that is not 
self-describing).  Without any other indication I'd say instructions in a 
file named "*inval.s" should _all_ be invalid, always.


Ciao,
Michael.