[PATCH] D149579: [X86][MC] Fix parsing Intel syntax indirect branch with symbol only

[Alvin Wong via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

alvinhochun marked an inline comment as not done.
alvinhochun added a comment.

In D149579#4320765 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579#4320765>, @MaskRay wrote:

> OK. I  think after D149695 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149695> (landed), D149920 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149920>, and this patch D149579 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579>, these cases should be correct.

Thank you so much for looking into this!

I have one question in inline comment.



================
Comment at: llvm/test/MC/X86/intel-syntax-branch.s:61-67
+  // FIXME: MASM does not accept this syntax and GAS assembles this as a direct
+  //        call/jump instead of indirect. Consider making this syntax an error?
+  call [offset fn_ref]
+  jmp [offset fn_ref]
+  // CHECK-32-LABEL: t7:
+  // CHECK-32: calll *fn_ref
+  // CHECK-32: jmpl *fn_ref
----------------
About the `call [offset fn_ref]` case, do you think we should reject it since MASM does not accept this syntax and GAS appears to behave oddly with it? The `ms-inline-asm-functions.c` test does generate `call [offset _kptr]` so this will also need to be changed.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/MC/X86/intel-syntax-branch.s:48
+  call dword ptr fn_ref
+  jmp dword ptr fn_ref
+  // CHECK-32-LABEL: t5:
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> ICC and MSVC parse this differently.
> 
> Is this syntax valid?
MASM ml.exe assembles this as `jmp dword ptr [fn_ref]` in my test, so does GAS. I don't know how valid this syntax is though.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579