Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ordering of instructions in optable.xml is random from SSSE 3 on #33

Open
ghghost opened this issue Apr 25, 2013 · 3 comments
Open

Ordering of instructions in optable.xml is random from SSSE 3 on #33

ghghost opened this issue Apr 25, 2013 · 3 comments

Comments

@ghghost
Copy link
Contributor

ghghost commented Apr 25, 2013

Instructions through SSE 3 are in alpha order by mnemonic within each group, but from SSSE 3 on, they seem to be in random order. I'd like to put every group in alpha order. Comments?

@ghghost
Copy link
Contributor Author

ghghost commented Apr 30, 2013

Having looked more carefully through the existing optable.xml, I think the intent is to organize each section alphabetically by functional mnemonic and then by increasing operand width within each functional mnemonic. For example, this leads to the ordering and, andps, andpd, andnps, andnpd ('and' and 'andn' being distinct functional mnemonics) rather than and, andnpd, andnps, andpd, andps. I am going to go ahead and reorder the SSE sections according to this structure.

@vmt
Copy link
Owner

vmt commented May 5, 2013

The intent so far has been to order by functional mnemonic within a section. Going forward I'd like drop these section/grouping and take one of two approaches

(a) Order by functional mnemonic only. Use class tags for information about the instructions for the reader.

(b) Split the optable.xml into <major_class>.xml: sse.xml, sse2.xml, avx.xml

I don't like the groupings and they serve little purpose. Also, I'd discourage hand editing for re-orderings. The best approach would be to add the relevant class tags, and then script the re-orderings.

@ghghost
Copy link
Contributor Author

ghghost commented May 5, 2013

Sounds good to me. I like (a) better than (b). Please discard the reordering patch I sent.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants