Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 08/22] target/i386: reimplement (V)PAND, (V)ANDPS, (V)ANDPD

[Jan Bobek]

On 7/31/19 3:35 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 7/31/19 10:56 AM, Jan Bobek wrote:
>> +#define gen_pand_mm(env, s, modrm)   gen_gvec_ld_modrm_mm  ((env), (s), 
>> (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0112)
>> +#define gen_pand_xmm(env, s, modrm)  gen_gvec_ld_modrm_xmm ((env), (s), 
>> (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0112)
>> +#define gen_vpand_xmm(env, s, modrm) gen_gvec_ld_modrm_vxmm((env), (s), 
>> (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0123)
>> +#define gen_vpand_ymm(env, s, modrm) gen_gvec_ld_modrm_vymm((env), (s), 
>> (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0123)
>> +#define gen_andps_xmm  gen_pand_xmm
>> +#define gen_vandps_xmm gen_vpand_xmm
>> +#define gen_vandps_ymm gen_vpand_ymm
>> +#define gen_andpd_xmm  gen_pand_xmm
>> +#define gen_vandpd_xmm gen_vpand_xmm
>> +#define gen_vandpd_ymm gen_vpand_ymm
> 
> 
> Why all of these extra defines?
> 
>> +    enum {
>> +        M_0F    = 0x01 << 8,
>> +        M_0F38  = 0x02 << 8,
>> +        M_0F3A  = 0x04 << 8,
>> +        P_66    = 0x08 << 8,
>> +        P_F3    = 0x10 << 8,
>> +        P_F2    = 0x20 << 8,
>> +        VEX_128 = 0x40 << 8,
>> +        VEX_256 = 0x80 << 8,
>> +    };
>> +
>> +    switch(b | M_0F
>> +           | (s->prefix & PREFIX_DATA ? P_66 : 0)
>> +           | (s->prefix & PREFIX_REPZ ? P_F3 : 0)
>> +           | (s->prefix & PREFIX_REPNZ ? P_F2 : 0)
>> +           | (s->prefix & PREFIX_VEX ? (s->vex_l ? VEX_256 : VEX_128) : 0)) 
>> {
> 
> I think you can move this above almost everything in this function, so that 
> all
> of the legacy bits follow this switch.
> 
>> +    case 0xdb | M_0F:                  gen_pand_mm(env, s, modrm); return;
> 
> You'll want to put these on the next lines -- checkpatch.pl again.
> 
>> +    case 0xdb | M_0F | P_66:           gen_pand_xmm(env, s, modrm); return;
>> +    case 0xdb | M_0F | P_66 | VEX_128: gen_vpand_xmm(env, s, modrm); return;
>> +    case 0xdb | M_0F | P_66 | VEX_256: gen_vpand_ymm(env, s, modrm); return;
>> +    case 0x54 | M_0F:                  gen_andps_xmm(env, s, modrm); return;
>> +    case 0x54 | M_0F | VEX_128:        gen_vandps_xmm(env, s, modrm); 
>> return;
>> +    case 0x54 | M_0F | VEX_256:        gen_vandps_ymm(env, s, modrm); 
>> return;
>> +    case 0x54 | M_0F | P_66:           gen_andpd_xmm(env, s, modrm); return;
>> +    case 0x54 | M_0F | P_66 | VEX_128: gen_vandpd_xmm(env, s, modrm); 
>> return;
>> +    case 0x54 | M_0F | P_66 | VEX_256: gen_vandpd_ymm(env, s, modrm); 
>> return;
>> +    default: break;
>> +    }
> 
> Perhaps group cases together?
> 
>     case 0xdb | M_0F | P_66:  /* PAND */
>     case 0x54 | M_0F:         /* ANDPS */
>     case 0x54 | M_0F | P_66:  /* ANDPD */
>        gen_gvec_ld_modrm_xmm(env, s, modrm, MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0112);
>        return;

As Aleksandar pointed out in his email, the general intuition was to
have self-documenting code. Seeing

case 0x54 | M_0F | VEX_256: gen_vandps_ymm(env, s, modrm); return;

clearly states that this particular case is a VANDPS, and if one wants
to see what we do with it, they can go look gen_vandps_ymm up.

That being said, I have to the conclusion in the meantime that keeping
all the extra macros is just too much code and not worth it, so I'll
do it like you suggest above.

> How are you planning to handle CPUID checks?  I know the currently handling is
> quite spotty, but with a reorg we might as well fix that too.

Good question. CPUID checks are not handled in this patch at all, I
will need to come up with a workable approach.

-Jan

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature