[PATCH] D37262: The issues with X86 prefixes: step 2

[Andrew Tischenko via llvm-commits]

It is not a simple flag, it's some data. And this data could be useful 
for any other component because it's some opaque info which could be 
send via MCInst from one low level target component to another one. 
Without this (additional) data MCInst loosing (potentially very useful) 
info about the given instruction.

Andrew

On 25.09.2017 22:05, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote:
> Having a flag field that is used only on disassembly seems wrong.
>
> Don't we support parsing our own output? I don't see trepne in any .s
> test for example.
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
> Craig Topper via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> writes:
>
>> craig.topper added a comment.
>>
>> I'm not sure I can approve growing the size of MCInst. Though I can't see anyway around it. @rafael what do you think?
>>
>>
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D37262