[PATCH] Support APX NF

[Jan Beulich]

On 29.02.2024 13:00, Cui, Lili wrote:
>> On 27.02.2024 10:01, Cui, Lili wrote:
>>> @@ -8860,6 +8880,9 @@ match_template (char mnem_suffix)
>>>  		  goto check_operands_345;
>>>  		}
>>>  	      else if (t->opcode_space != SPACE_BASE
>>> +		       /* Map0 and map1 are promoted to MAP4 when NF is
>> enabled.
>>> +			*/
>>> +		       && !t->opcode_modifier.nf
>>>  		       && (t->opcode_space != SPACE_0F
>>>  			   /* MOV to/from CR/DR/TR, as an exception, follow
>>>  			      the base opcode space encoding model.  */
>>
>> I don't understand this: How does a template permitting NF matter here?
>> I could see the immediately preceding "else if" become something along the
>> lines of
>>
>> 	      else if (is_cpu (t, CpuAPX_F) && (i.operands == 3 || i.has_nf))
>>
>> But I admit I didn't fully think this through. It's just that the change as is looks
>> wrong to me.
>>
> 
> I was also dissatisfied with this place yesterday and then modified it to:
> 
>               else if (t->opcode_space != SPACE_BASE
>                        /* For EVEX-promoted instructions, opcode_space is
>                           promoted to MAP4.  */
>                        && (t->opcode_space != SPACE_EVEXMAP4
>                            || t->mnem_off == MN_movbe)
>                        && (t->opcode_space != SPACE_0F
>                            /* MOV to/from CR/DR/TR, as an exception, follow
>                               the base opcode space encoding model.  */
>                            || (t->base_opcode | 7) != 0x27))
> 
> For EVEX-promoted instructions, opcode_space is promoted to MAP4. The old judgment no longer fit for EVEX promoted instructions. However, the logic of this place is still not good.

So what about my suggestion?

Jan