[llvm-bugs] [Bug 44272] [CLANG-CL] 64x inline assembler function call/jump miscompiled

[via llvm-bugs]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44272

Martynas Skirmantas <zegzmanzoro at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |---
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED

--- Comment #5 from Martynas Skirmantas <zegzmanzoro at gmail.com> ---
Hold up, I have reopened the bug report, I did way more digging and I found
many people stating that Clang support 64bit inline assembly and some people
are using it by looking at stackoverflow questions, here is old post:
http://blog.llvm.org/2018/03/clang-is-now-used-to-build-chrome-for.html 

It states that chrome is using Clang-CL and they use 64 bit and 32 bit inline
assembly to build a library. What is going on here? it just doesn't add up,
there are many people that claim this if you google enough your self, surely a
llvm blogging site wouldn't lie about such a thing.

This is what it says: "Clang supports 64-bit inline assembly. For example, in
Chrome we built libyuv (a video format conversion library) with Clang long
before we built all of Chrome with it. libyuv had highly-tuned 64-bit inline
assembly with performance not reachable with intrinsics, and we could just use
that code on Windows." 

There are many uses for a inline assembler as statement by the blog, this bug
should be fixed, which has been as confirmed by "Eric Astor" using godbolt
compiler explorer. I would like to hear a official statement that this bug
can't be fixed or 64bit inline assembly is NOT supported by Clang.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20191212/bbed7811/attachment.html>