Another leftover from the dropping of Xeon Phi support.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
Note: I'm deliberately not switching to use of the conditional operator,
as the form as is resulting now is what we'll want for APX (which is
where I noticed this small piece of dead logic).

--- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
+++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
@@ -911,10 +911,8 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
     n = test->scale == SC_vl ? vsz : esz;
     if ( !sg )
         n += vsz;
-    else if ( !strstr(test->mnemonic, "pf") )
-        n += esz;
     else
-        ++n;
+        n += esz;
 
     for ( ; i < n; ++i )
          if ( accessed[i] != (sg ? (vsz / esz) >> (test->opc & 1 & !evex.w)

On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:46 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Another leftover from the dropping of Xeon Phi support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> Note: I'm deliberately not switching to use of the conditional operator,
> as the form as is resulting now is what we'll want for APX (which is
> where I noticed this small piece of dead logic).
>
> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
> @@ -911,10 +911,8 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
>      n = test->scale == SC_vl ? vsz : esz;
>      if ( !sg )
>          n += vsz;
> -    else if ( !strstr(test->mnemonic, "pf") )
> -        n += esz;
>      else
> -        ++n;
> +        n += esz;

Just making sure. This is leftover from 85191cf32180("x86: drop Xeon Phi
support"), right? Dead code after the removal of the avx512pf group.

If so, that sounds good. But (not having looking at the general logic), how
come we go from ++n to "n += esz". It's all quite cryptic.

>  
>      for ( ; i < n; ++i )
>           if ( accessed[i] != (sg ? (vsz / esz) >> (test->opc & 1 & !evex.w)

Cheers,
Alejandro

On 16.10.2024 12:34, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:46 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
>> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
>> @@ -911,10 +911,8 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
>>      n = test->scale == SC_vl ? vsz : esz;
>>      if ( !sg )
>>          n += vsz;
>> -    else if ( !strstr(test->mnemonic, "pf") )
>> -        n += esz;
>>      else
>> -        ++n;
>> +        n += esz;
> 
> Just making sure. This is leftover from 85191cf32180("x86: drop Xeon Phi
> support"), right? Dead code after the removal of the avx512pf group.

Yes.

> If so, that sounds good. But (not having looking at the general logic), how
> come we go from ++n to "n += esz". It's all quite cryptic.

It's the (prior) if() portion we're keeping, and the "else" we're dropping.
The if() checks for _no_ "pf" in the mnemonic. "Going from ++n to n+= esz"
is merely an effect of how the change is being expressed as diff.

Jan

On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 11:54 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.10.2024 12:34, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:46 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
> >> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
> >> @@ -911,10 +911,8 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
> >>      n = test->scale == SC_vl ? vsz : esz;
> >>      if ( !sg )
> >>          n += vsz;
> >> -    else if ( !strstr(test->mnemonic, "pf") )
> >> -        n += esz;
> >>      else
> >> -        ++n;
> >> +        n += esz;
> > 
> > Just making sure. This is leftover from 85191cf32180("x86: drop Xeon Phi
> > support"), right? Dead code after the removal of the avx512pf group.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, that sounds good. But (not having looking at the general logic), how
> > come we go from ++n to "n += esz". It's all quite cryptic.
>
> It's the (prior) if() portion we're keeping, and the "else" we're dropping.
> The if() checks for _no_ "pf" in the mnemonic. "Going from ++n to n+= esz"
> is merely an effect of how the change is being expressed as diff.
>
> Jan

Bah, misremembered strstr() being used like strcmp() on match, but of course
that makes no sense with the substring being returned. Thanks for spelling it
out :)

Cheers,
Alejandro

On 16/10/2024 8:46 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Another leftover from the dropping of Xeon Phi support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>