[PATCH] Support APX CCMP and CTEST

[Cui, Lili]

> On 29.05.2024 13:05, Cui, Lili wrote:
> >>>>>>> +	      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))
> 
> With && replaced by & here ...
> 

Sorry, I pasted a wrong version here.

> > +    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:
> 
> ... this looks okay to me (still pending the rename of the constant names,
> though).

I think you mean const char *l (suffix_string), I moved this function to parse_insn, and it needs to return a value for length (suffix_string - l).  More details will be provided in the next version. 

Thanks,
Lili.