[PATCH] D142834: [RFC][X86][MC] Update and clarify the behavior of functions getX86SubSuperRegister*
Kan Shengchen via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sun Jan 29 17:54:30 PST 2023
skan added a comment.
In D142834#4089368 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142834#4089368>, @pengfei wrote:
> In D142834#4088861 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142834#4088861>, @skan wrote:
>
>> In D142834#4088826 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142834#4088826>, @pengfei wrote:
>>
>>> In D142834#4088776 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142834#4088776>, @skan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not use report_fatal_error b/c it's unrelated to user input
>>>
>>> There will be difference with dedicated cases, e.g.: https://godbolt.org/z/oca6bj4s3
>>
>> It is an impossible case. We can only access 8-bit high register for register a, b, c d in inline asm.
>>
>> void f() {
>> char x;
>> asm volatile ("mov %h0, %h0" :"=r"(x)::);
>> asm volatile ("mov %h0, %h0" :"=r"(x)::"%eax", "%ebx", "%ecx", "%edx", "edi", "esi");
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> bash$ gcc -S 1.c -o -
>> .file "1.c"
>> .text
>> .globl f
>> .type f, @function
>> f:
>> .LFB0:
>> .cfi_startproc
>> pushq %rbp
>> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
>> .cfi_offset 6, -16
>> movq %rsp, %rbp
>> .cfi_def_cfa_register 6
>> pushq %rbx
>> .cfi_offset 3, -24
>> #APP
>> # 3 "1.c" 1
>> mov %ah, %ah
>> # 0 "" 2
>> #NO_APP
>> movb %al, -9(%rbp)
>> #APP
>> # 4 "1.c" 1
>> 1.c: In function âfâ:
>> 1.c:5:1: error: extended registers have no high halves
>
> I'm not sure if there's special requirment in LLVM. If we want to match with gcc, should we just need to replace `return getX86SubSuperRegisterOrZero(Reg, 64);` with `return X86::NoRegister`?
I think so. And it looks like one of `getX86SubSuperRegisterOrZero` and `getX86SubSuperRegister` is redundant, let me do some clean work.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142834/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142834
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list