add BMI2 instruction pdep #328
Conversation
proofs/compiler/x86_instr_decl.v
Outdated
| @@ -621,6 +622,10 @@ Definition x86_PEXT sz (v1 v2: word sz): ex_tpl (w_ty sz) := | |||
| let _ := check_size_32_64 sz in | |||
| ok (@pextr sz v1 v2). | |||
|
|
|||
| Definition x86_PDEP sz (v1 v2: word sz): ex_tpl (w_ty sz) := | |||
| let _ := check_size_32_64 sz in | |||
| ok (@pextr sz v1 v2). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, your are using the semantic of pext to define the semantic of pdep.
Do you need help to be able to properly define the semantic of pdep in Coq and Easycrypt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, some help would be much appreciated. I've been discussing with @sarranz about it and was told that the semantic isn't correct. Supporting it however doesn't seem trivial in his opinion: https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/pdep
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is now ready to be merged.
Review is welcome
|
Why is there an “-r” at the end of the names of the |
|
Please also add a note to the CHANGELOG. |
|
@kcning can you add a note in the CHANGELOG as required by Vincent ? |
|
And also please remove the trailing |
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Grēgoire <Benjamin.Gregoire@inria.fr>
|
I’ve removed the trailing CI: https://gitlab.com/jasmin-lang/jasmin/-/pipelines/759329323 |
|
Together with Antoine, we’ve tested all day the Coq semantics and are pretty sure that it not too wrong. |
No description provided.