This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] x86: reject further invalid AVX-512 masking constructs


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>

All error checkings should have a testcase in AT&T syntax, unless they
are specific to Intel syntax.  You can create a new input file to avoid a
large diff on output of existing test.


-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]