Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>]

>>> On 08.10.13 at 17:33, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 08.10.13 at 17:16, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx assign special meaning to base and index
>>>> registers, and hence silently swapping the registers should be
>>>> suppressed.
>>>>
>>>> gas/
>>>> 2013-10-08  Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>>
>>>>         * tc-i386.c (i386_intel_simplify_register): Suppress base/index
>>>>         swapping for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx.
>>>>
>>>> --- 2013-10-07/gas/config/tc-i386-intel.c
>>>> +++ 2013-10-07/gas/config/tc-i386-intel.c
>>>> @@ -291,6 +291,8 @@ i386_intel_simplify_register (expression
>>>>    else if (!intel_state.index)
>>>>      {
>>>>        if (intel_state.in_scale
>>>> +          || current_templates->start->base_opcode == 0xf30f1b /* bndmk */
>>>> +          || (current_templates->start->base_opcode & ~1) == 0x0f1a /* 
> bnd{ld,st}x */
>>>>           || i386_regtab[reg_num].reg_type.bitfield.baseindex)
>>>>         intel_state.index = i386_regtab + reg_num;
>>>>        else
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We need a testcase for this.
>>
>> Which is included in patch 1!
> 
> Does that mean I got "make check" failure with patch 1 applied?
> A patch shouldn't introduce a "make check" failure and a testcase
> should be together with the change.

Both 0/6 and 1/6 mentioned this quite clearly. And no, with how
badly the MPX tests were written (referring to other badly written
ones would at best be a lame excuse), I don't think it's appropriate
for you to ask that I now go back and disentangle all the various
changes to those test cases. You shouldn't have approved/
committed such non-extensible test cases in the first place.

Jan