[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D156086: [lldb][NFC] Use MCInstrAnalysis when available in the disassembler plugin

Venkata Ramanaiah Nalamothu via Phabricator via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 26 19:45:10 PDT 2023

RamNalamothu added a comment.

In D156086#4536992 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4536992>, @jasonmolenda wrote:

> In D156086#4530507 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4530507>, @RamNalamothu wrote:
>> In D156086#4529791 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4529791>, @jasonmolenda wrote:
>>> Does `isBranch` include other variants like `isUnconditionalBranch`?
>> No. They are implemented as separate methods. You can see that with a full context diff of MCInstrAnalysis.h changes in this revision or MCInstrAnalysis.h <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/include/llvm/MC/MCInstrAnalysis.h>
> `mayAffectControlFlow` doesn't test for `isUnconditionalBranch`.  Is that a problem?   I didn't look through the different property check methods like this, but I happened to notice this one and see it wasn't detected in `mayAffectControlFlow`.  Maybe I misunderstood something.

The idea is MCInstrAnalysis's default implementation just replicates what MCInstrDesc does (MCInstrDesc::mayAffectControlFlow <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/MC/MCInstrDesc.cpp#L20>) and the individual targets can refine those methods as needed.

In D156086#4537284 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4537284>, @MaskRay wrote:

> It seems that a lldb specific test is needed. Adding a new method to `llvm/include/llvm/MC/MCInstrAnalysis.h` is fine with me, though I haven't checked the semantics.

I will try to add a lldb specific test.

  rG LLVM Github Monorepo



More information about the lldb-commits mailing list