From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B4CC61DD6 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2026 06:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x1et4-0007NY-AJ; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 02:55:58 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x1et2-0007NP-4Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 02:55:56 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.10]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x1et0-0001FV-9P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2026 02:55:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1788332154; x=1819868154; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=YGRmuShcmU1fTeR/i/EaHJtCC/yTVFVPz1iWVrbsKAs=; b=Z/aH9w6fxuhHTJjNUVE0cOP2DWh1YFyIDg7dTOtvosXLZ9Pcra7jmUoT tlJGcSvmSAl8KI61LUpLXGpcjisepG5jrN0TD+Kkp+pWMeo7cB27cb8Yy wrcIjl2CeSfTXHQJzbFfTIrw6q2I3dvrQEtDb4gYA7/NpYsOhqafUtGTg n0p/D6AGHGOExDkHWKCYwwHOjb84+FwEnSW6IGrWlCoLpfSKCWbhFFrJ+ P1jPUzqgqKTuds52TpJ+m5E9Xe0p0QmTD3ipMvNo/gFeNxiWr5Mx6NQk1 MTRIxULCdmGsDaq23Z34bclV9pfkl6heMFvzNtSuDiyMn+eZLnniIWfXV w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: iBl9pgpKQnmHn9OZ09/rxA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: FtqOGi8bQ9aijwAA/4rGyw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11893"; a="100133607" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.25,257,1779174000"; d="scan'208";a="100133607" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Sep 2026 23:55:51 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: QNiEBdGBSrSdHmNe7v/UCg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: WfNQ+9QPQDKP65n/1la2zQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.25,257,1779174000"; d="scan'208";a="269341321" Received: from zhaoliu1-desk.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.238.208.118]) by orviesa007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2026 23:55:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 14:55:49 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Zhao Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] target/i386/tcg: add decode functionality for APX Message-ID: References: <20260825122921.431739-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260825122921.431739-17-pbonzini@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260825122921.431739-17-pbonzini@redhat.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.10; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org > +static bool validate_evex_apx(DisasContext *s, X86DecodedInsn *decode) > +{ > + X86OpEntry *e = &decode->e; > + uint8_t evex4_mask = 0; > + > + assert(s->has_modrm); > + switch (e->vex_class) { > + case 13: > + /* > + * APX-EVEX-BMI and APX-EVEX-CMPCCXADD do not define EVEX.ND. > + * They only differ for checks on NF, which happen elsewhere. > + */ > + if (!CODE64(s) || !(s->flags & HF_APX_EN_MASK)) { > + goto illegal; > + } > + evex4_mask = 0x0C; > + break; > + > + case X86_EVEX_APX: > + /* APX-EVEX-INT. Checks on NF happen elsewhere. */ > + assert(e->s0 == e->s1); This assertion seems too strong, should we only check it for X86_TYPE_B? Thanks, Zhao > + if (!CODE64(s) || !(s->flags & HF_APX_EN_MASK)) { > + goto illegal; > + } > + if (!EVEX_APX_ND(s)) { > + s->vex_ndd = false; > + } else if (!s->vex_ndd) { > + goto illegal; > + } > + evex4_mask = 0x1C; > + break;