<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 12, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Sorry, I spoke too soon. This only happens for intel style inline assembly in LLVM IR. I don't have a good suggestion.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Why is it relevant that the issue is contained? The 0b support in MS asm shouldn’t break the general intel assembly syntax. <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM Reid Kleckner <<a href="mailto:rnk@google.com" class="">rnk@google.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">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 .intel_syntax directive. That's just wrong.</div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:34 AM Francis Visoiu Mistrih via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br class="">
<br class="">
We have a significant regression since llvm 5.0.0 in the x86 assembler.<br class="">
<br class="">
The following snippets fail:<br class="">
<br class="">
1)<br class="">
<br class="">
.intel_syntax<br class="">
0:<br class="">
jmp 0b<br class="">
<br class="">
2)<br class="">
<br class="">
.intel_syntax<br class="">
and edi, 0b010101<br class="">
<br class="">
when running through `llvm-mc -arch x86-64`.<br class="">
<br class="">
This regression was introduced in r301390, which was driven by PR27884.<br class="">
<br class="">
I think <a href="https://llvm.org/PR36144" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://llvm.org/PR36144</a> describes this very well, and I think we should<br class="">
get this fixed, since it's a pretty basic thing to support in the assembler.<br class="">
<br class="">
Here are a few solutions to this:<br class="">
<br class="">
1) Introduce a new asm dialect/flavor/style to assemble masm files.<br class="">
<br class="">
2) Only set the flags based on the target triple. Also suggested in PR27884.<br class="">
<br class="">
3) Only set the flags based on a new command line flag.<br class="">
<br class="">
Let me know if any other solution comes to mind.<br class="">
<br class="">
While we get this issue fixed, is it reasonable to revert r301390?<br class="">
<br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Francis<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
LLVM Developers mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">LLVM Developers mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>