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

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 8:00 AM Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

Agreed.

-- 
H.J.