[PATCH V5 9/9] Support APX JMPABS for disassembler

[Hu, Lin1]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:41 PM
> To: Hu, Lin1 <lin1.hu@intel.com>
> Cc: Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>; binutils@sourceware.org; Cui, Lili
> <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 9/9] Support APX JMPABS for disassembler
> 
> On 08.01.2024 03:32, Hu, Lin1 wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 8:09 PM
> >> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Lu, Hongjiu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>; Hu, Lin1 <lin1.hu@intel.com>;
> >> binutils@sourceware.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 9/9] Support APX JMPABS for disassembler
> >>
> >> On 28.12.2023 02:27, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-jmpabs-inval.s
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> >>> +# Check bytecode of APX_F jmpabs instructions with illegal encode.
> >>> +
> >>> +	.text
> >>> +# With 66 prefix
> >>> +	.byte 0x66,0xd5,0x00,0xa1,0x01,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>> +# With 67 prefix
> >>> +	.byte 0x67,0xd5,0x00,0xa1,0x01,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>> +# With F2 prefix
> >>> +	.byte 0xf2,0xd5,0x00,0xa1,0x01,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>> +# With F3 prefix
> >>> +	.byte 0xf3,0xd5,0x00,0xa1,0x01,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>> +# With LOCK prefix
> >>> +	.byte 0xf0,0xd5,0x00,0xa1,0x01,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>> +# REX2.M0 = 0 REX2.W = 1
> >>> +	.byte 0xd5,0x08,0xa1,0x01,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>
> >> Considering that I specifically asked that this use .insn, and that I
> >> further took the time to make a patch to make .insn work with {rex2},
> >> I find it rather poor that here and ...
> >>
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/x86-64-apx-jmpabs.s
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> >>> +# Check 64bit APX_F JMPABS instructions
> >>> +
> >>> +	.text
> >>> + _start:
> >>> +	.byte 0xd5,0x00,0xa1,0x02,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
> >>
> >> ... here it is still .byte that is being used.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not always keeping my eye on what patches push in Binutils.
> 
> That's not a general requirement of course, but when it specifically is work done
> for you, I would have expected it to be recognized and then leveraged.
> 

OK, I will upstream another fix patch.

BRs,
Lin