[PATCH] D114492: [PowerPC][llvm-objdump] enable --symbolize-operands for PowerPC ELF/XCOFF.

[ChenZheng via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

shchenz added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lld/test/ELF/ppc64-toc-call-to-pcrel.s:32
 
-# CHECK-LABEL: callee
-# CHECK:       blr
+# CHECK:      <callee>
+# CHECK:      blr
----------------
The change is not so straightforward to me.

Could we use `<callee>:`, `<caller>:`, `<__toc_save_callee>:` as the check label content? So it would not be confused with the new added branch target like `<__toc_save_callee>`.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-objdump/ELF/PowerPC/disassemble-symbolize-operands.ll:1
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu %s -filetype=obj -o %t
+; RUN: llvm-objdump %t -d --symbolize-operands --no-show-raw-insn --no-leading-addr \
----------------
Can we add a case with internal/external function calls?


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-objdump/ELF/PowerPC/disassemble-symbolize-operands.ll:3
+; RUN: llvm-objdump %t -d --symbolize-operands --no-show-raw-insn --no-leading-addr \
+; RUN:   | FileCheck %s
+
----------------
And maybe another case for CTR loop too?(for `bdnz`)


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-objdump/XCOFF/disassemble-symbolize-operands.ll:2
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=powerpc-ibm-aix-xcoff %s -filetype=obj -o %t
+; RUN: llvm-objdump %t -d --symbolize-operands --no-show-raw-insn --no-leading-addr \
+; RUN:   | FileCheck %s
----------------
Can we show the leading-addr? As it can show whether the label matches the addr or not.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D114492/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D114492