[PATCH 1/2 v2] Support APX CCMP and CTEST

[Cui, Lili]

> On 14.06.2024 13:08, Cui, Lili wrote:
> > @@ -341,10 +342,28 @@ cmp, 0x38, 0,
> > D|W|CheckOperandSize|Modrm|No_sSuf, { Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64,
> Reg8
> > cmp, 0x83/7, 0, Modrm|No_bSuf|No_sSuf, { Imm8S,
> > Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex }  cmp, 0x3c, 0, W|No_sSuf, {
> > Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S, Acc|Byte|Word|Dword|Qword }  cmp,
> 0x80/7, 0,
> > W|Modrm|No_sSuf, { Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> > Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex }
> > +cmp, 0x380a, APX_F,
> D|W|CheckOperandSize|EVexMap4|Scc|Modrm|No_sSuf,
> > +{ Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64,
> > +Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex } cmp, 0x830a/7,
> APX_F,
> > +Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_bSuf|No_sSuf, { Imm8S,
> > +Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex } cmp, 0x800a/7, APX_F,
> > +W|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, { Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> > +Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex }
> > +
> > +<scc:opc, o:0, no:1, b:2, c:2, nae:2, nb:3, nc:3, ae:3, e:4, z:4, ne:5, nz:5,
> be:6, na:6, nbe:7, a:7, +
> > +         s:8, ns:9, t:a, f:b, l:c, nge:c, nl:d, ge:d, le:e, ng:e,
> > +nle:f, g:f>
> > +
> > +ccmp<scc>, 0x380<scc:opc>, APX_F,
> > +D|W|CheckOperandSize|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, {
> > +Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex
> > +} ccmp<scc>, 0x830<scc:opc>/7, APX_F,
> > +Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_bSuf|No_sSuf, { Imm8S,
> > +Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex } ccmp<scc>,
> > +0x800<scc:opc>/7, APX_F, W|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, {
> > +Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex
> > +}
> >
> >  test, 0x84, 0, D|W|C|CheckOperandSize|Modrm|No_sSuf, {
> > Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex }
> > test, 0xa8, 0, W|No_sSuf|Optimize, { Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> > Acc|Byte|Word|Dword|Qword }  test, 0xf6/0, 0,
> > W|Modrm|No_sSuf|Optimize, { Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> > Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex }
> > +test, 0x840a, 0,
> D|W|C|CheckOperandSize|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, {
> > +Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex
> > +} test, 0xf60a/0, 0, W|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, {
> > +Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex
> > +}
> > +
> > +ctest<scc>, 0x840<scc:opc>, APX_F,
> > +D|W|C|CheckOperandSize|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, {
> > +Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex
> > +} ctest<scc>, 0xf60<scc:opc>/0, APX_F, W|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf,
> > +{ Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> > +Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex } ctest<scc>,
> > +0xf60<scc:opc>/1, APX_F, W|Modrm|EVexMap4|Scc|No_sSuf, {
> > +Imm8|Imm16|Imm32|Imm32S,
> Reg8|Reg16|Reg32|Reg64|Unspecified|BaseIndex
> > +}
> 
> Spotting this only now: What's this last line for? This template is impossible to
> come into use, unless I'm missing something. I understand there is this
> secondary encoding (also for the legacy-encoded counterpart), but something
> that's impossible to be used better wouldn't be there. The more that in the
> resulting table we're talking of almost 30 extra entries.
> 
Ok, thanks, I will create a patch to remove the second one.

Lili.