[PATCH] Support APX CCMP and CTEST

[Cui, Lili]

> >>>>> +	      i.oszc_flags |= (1 << CF);
> >>>>> +	      break;
> >>>>
> >>>> Shouldn't you further reject redundant settings, as in
> >>>>
> >>>> 	ccmpe {dfv=cf,cf} ...
> >>>>
> >>>> ?
> >>>
> >>> How about keeping this compatibility? Like any other pseudo prefix.
> >>
> >> Which "compatibility"? And why the reference to pseudo prefixes when
> >> here we're dealing with something entirely new, a pseudo suffix?
> >> Within a single {dfv=...} each flag should be mentioned at most once.
> >> Anything else is a potential indication of a mistake the programmer made.
> >> Separately from this we may consider whether to permit more than one
> >> {dfv=...} for a single insn, with the latter than fully replacing the
> >> former's effects. Personally I'd recommend against that unless a
> >> clear use case could be provided, but I wouldn't object to such being done
> right away.
> >>
> >
> > It's a suffix, but I think we can tolerate multiple repetitions of a flag by just
> overwriting the previous one with the next one. Like the pseudo-prefix {vex}
> {vex} . If you insist on giving {dfv=cf,cf}  an error, I'd just put a check before the
> assignment.
> 
> Well, if you think it may be useful, make it just a warning? Part of my desire to
> see this diagnosed is related to your use of "overwriting" in the reply:
> There's no real overwriting; things can only be cumulative here, as there's no
> way to specify the clearing of one of the flags. Any flags to be cleared are
> indicated as such by simply not mentioning them at all.
> 

Yes, "overright" is not the right word. How about this?

+static INLINE void set_oszc_flags (unsigned int oszc_shift)
+{
+  if (i.oszc_flags && (1 << oszc_shift))
+    as_bad (_("same oszc flag used twice"));
+  i.oszc_flags |= 1 << oszc_shift;
+}
+
 /* Handle SCC OSZC flags.  */

 static int
@@ -1999,16 +2006,16 @@ check_Scc_OszcOperations (const char *l)
           switch (suffix_string[0])
             {
             case 'o':
-              i.oszc_flags |= (1 << OF);
+             set_oszc_flags (OF);
               break;
             case 's':
-              i.oszc_flags |= (1 << SF);
+             set_oszc_flags (SF);
               break;
             case 'z':
-              i.oszc_flags |= (1 << ZF);
+             set_oszc_flags (ZF);
               break;
             case 'c':
-              i.oszc_flags |= (1 << CF);
+             set_oszc_flags (CF);
               break;
             default:

Thanks,
Lili.