[llvm-dev] PR36144: X86 Intel syntax and masm flavor (original) (raw)

Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Sep 12 13:48:00 PDT 2018

Sorry, I spoke too soon. This only happens for intel style inline assembly in LLVM IR. I don't have a good suggestion.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:

I think we should revert r301390 just on principle from looking at the code. If I understand correctly, it flips the bit for "is parsing inline asm" to true when encountering a plain .intelsyntax directive. That's just wrong.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:34 AM Francis Visoiu Mistrih via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Hi,

We have a significant regression since llvm 5.0.0 in the x86 assembler. The following snippets fail: 1) .intelsyntax 0: jmp 0b 2) .intelsyntax and edi, 0b010101 when running through llvm-mc -arch x86-64. This regression was introduced in r301390, which was driven by PR27884. I think https://llvm.org/PR36144 describes this very well, and I think we should get this fixed, since it's a pretty basic thing to support in the assembler. Here are a few solutions to this: 1) Introduce a new asm dialect/flavor/style to assemble masm files. 2) Only set the flags based on the target triple. Also suggested in PR27884. 3) Only set the flags based on a new command line flag. Let me know if any other solution comes to mind. While we get this issue fixed, is it reasonable to revert r301390? Thanks, -- Francis

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180912/e70f7aff/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list