[PATCH] x86/Intel: SHLD/SHRD have dual meaning
Jan Beulich
jbeulich@suse.com
Mon Apr 22 08:45:19 GMT 2024
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Mon Apr 22 08:45:19 GMT 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] x86/Intel: SHLD/SHRD have dual meaning
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH v2 0/4] x86/APX: respect -msse2avx
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 22.04.2024 09:43, Cui, Lili wrote: >> On 22.04.2024 06:09, Hongtao Liu wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:29 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Since we uniformly permit D suffixes in Intel mode whenever in AT&T >>>> mode an L suffix may be used, we need to be consistent with this. >>> I think we need to forbid the D suffix for APX NDD SHL/SHR under Intel >>> mode to avoid ambiguity. >> >> Hmm. Special casing just two insns is out of question imo (in fact that's what >> is - unintentionally - partly happening prior to the change here). >> >>> Neither SHL (always SAL), nor SHR with a D suffix (Intel mode) is >>> generated by GCC. >> >> While this may be deemed helpful, I actually view it as a mistake, even if only >> from a cosmetic perspective: SHL is the main insn; SAL is merely an alias >> (questionably using extension opcode 4 rather than 6 in gas). >> >> Still extending what you suggest - limiting the restriction to APX - may be an >> option, albeit ... >> >>>> --- >>>> The alternative, more intrusive and more risky (in terms of perceived >>>> or even real regressions) route would be to mark the few insns which >>>> permit suffixes even in Intel syntax, and reject suffix uses when >>>> that indicator isn't set. >> >> ... as implied here I'd still consider this inconsistent. >> >> Furthermore the point in time when suffixes are processed off of the >> incoming mnemonic is too early to know whether an insn is having an APX >> representation. Hence doing said extension of what you suggest would likely >> end up quite hacky. >> > > If the user messes them up, we can't figure out the original intention because the input is exactly the same, maybe we can find a suitable place to inform the user that shl + apx ndd does not support suffix? See my other reply to Hongtao. Plus, as said before, I'd much prefer if we wouldn't start special-casing any specific insns in this regard. (Which isn't to say that may not end up being necessary here.) Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] x86/Intel: SHLD/SHRD have dual meaning
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH v2 0/4] x86/APX: respect -msse2avx
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list