> I assume this was some toy compiler I dont know the definition of "toy compiler", but compare the following (x86 backend vs arm64 backend) https://github.co

> I assume this was some toy compiler I dont know the definition of "toy compiler", but compare the following (x86 backend vs arm64 backend) https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/blob/d960a0e/compiler/X86/x86-asm.lisp#L547 https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/blob/d960a0e/compiler/X86/x86... https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/blob/d960a0e/compiler/ARM64/arm64-asm.lisp#L294 https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/blob/d960a0e/compiler/ARM64/a... I would argue the former is a lot more complex compared to the functional equivalent in arm64 The specific extension to allow e.g. minss would look something like this (def-x86-opcode minss ((:regxmm :insert-xmm-rm) (:regxmm :insert-xmm-reg)) #x0f5d #o300 #x0 #xf3) Now try doing the same for e.g. movsxd, and you will have to be careful with the ModR/M byte, due to the VEX prefix changing semantics.