This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: reject further invalid AVX-512 masking constructs
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Binutils" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:24:34 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: reject further invalid AVX-512 masking constructs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5A12EF8102000078001901B5@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <CAMe9rOo3CvtyEHw+ug5zT7odmOA-YuBDjcF=AmEVmOzFPD9rqg@mail.gmail.com>
>>> On 20.11.17 at 15:10, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/inval-avx512f.s
>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/inval-avx512f.s
>> @@ -48,3 +48,6 @@ _start:
>> vaddps zmm2, zmm1, ZMMWORD PTR [eax]{1to16}
>> vaddps zmm2, zmm1, DWORD PTR [eax]
>> vaddpd zmm2, zmm1, QWORD PTR [eax]
>> +
>> + vaddps zmm2{ecx}, zmm1, zmm0
>> + vaddps zmm2{z}, zmm1, zmm0
>
> Do they fail only in Intel syntax? Testcases in AT&T syntax iare
> required unless they are specific to Intel syntax.
They fail in both modes. The way the test cases are written which
I'm modifying makes it rather ugly to insert AT&T tests. If you
want to really force me to do that juggling, may I please ask that
on _all_ future tests, line number and section offsets should either
be expressed by regex-es or, should their checking be a requirement
(like is the case here), Intel and AT&T syntax inputs go into different
files so one can easily add to the end of a file without having to flip
flop between syntaxes?
Please clarify your expectations.
Jan