[PATCH] D59398: [X86] Remove the _alt forms of XOP VPCOM instructions. Use a combination of custom printing and custom parsing to achieve the same result and more

[Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

lebedev.ri added inline comments.


================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-mca/X86/BdVer2/resources-xop.s:242
 # CHECK-NEXT:  2      7     1.00    *                   vpcmov	%ymm0, (%rax), %ymm1, %ymm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomb	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomb	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomd	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomd	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomq	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomq	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomub	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomub	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomud	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomud	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomuq	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomuq	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomuw	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomuw	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomw	$0, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
-# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomw	$0, (%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
+# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        vpcomltb	%xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm3
+# CHECK-NEXT:  1      7     0.50    *                   vpcomltb	(%rax), %xmm0, %xmm3
----------------
RKSimon wrote:
> lebedev.ri wrote:
> > So now that the immediate matters, should i add back these tests for the rest of immediates?
> You can if you want, although IIRC the only thing that could show different behaviour is true/false - and we don't emit those.
What i mean is, there does not seem to be other test changes other than these,
so is there test coverage for printing the VPCOM with imm != `0`?
I'm guessing no, and that is why i think the tests should be added.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59398/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59398