This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: kirill dot yukhin at intel dot com, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:19:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5254349502000078000F9A3D at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <525435E002000078000F9A55 at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOqDp1_mAdthvC=kJt_71K4b59kBXEAguGNMBKhrw24Upg at mail dot gmail dot com> <52543F7202000078000F9B07 at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOptKg-2WiZ7PRjgmhUz=gWzexfy6BsDy_MPVP95c-uQvw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5254485102000078000F9B47 at nat28 dot tlf dot novell dot com>
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
I prefer a testcase together with the corresponding change,
instead of a jumbo testcase patch. I also don't agree every
MPX change you proposed. If it makes it easier to write
testcases, you can use a separate testcase file for each
change.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
- References:
- [PATCH 0/6] x86: various MPX fixes
- [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx