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

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-commits]

The question is why it is different for disassembler than for the
assembler?

How does the assembler handle trepne?

Cheers,
Rafael

Andrew Tischenko <tishenandr at xenzu.com> writes:

> 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