Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 10/18] x86emul: test coverage for SSE/SSE2 insns

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/02/17 15:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.02.17 at 16:24, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 15/02/17 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>> @@ -11,11 +11,36 @@ all: $(TARGET)
>>>  run: $(TARGET)
>>>     ./$(TARGET)
>>>  
>>> -TESTCASES := blowfish
>>> +TESTCASES := blowfish simd
>>>  
>>>  blowfish-cflags := ""
>>>  blowfish-cflags-x86_32 := "-mno-accumulate-outgoing-args -Dstatic="
>>>  
>>> +sse-vecs := 16
>>> +sse-ints :=
>>> +sse-flts := 4
>>> +sse2-vecs := $(sse-vecs)
>>> +sse2-ints := 1 2 4 8
>>> +sse2-flts := 4 8
>>> +
>>> +# When converting SSE to AVX, have the compiler avoid XMM0 to widen
>>> +# coverage og the VEX.vvvv checks in the emulator.
>> coverage of.
> I did spot (and fix) this already.
>
>>> @@ -2589,6 +2665,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>              continue;
>>>          }
>>>  
>>> +        if ( blobs[j].check_cpu && !blobs[j].check_cpu() )
>>> +            continue;
>> Worth printing that we skip the blob?
> I'd rather not - things are already getting pretty verbose with the
> changes here and later on. In fact I've been considering to drop
> all the "skipped" printing when CPU features aren't there, as I don't
> think this information is very helpful. Let me know if I should drop
> your ack again (i.e. if you strongly think we need something printed
> here).

No - not that fussed.  It was only a thought.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel