llvm dev - Mar 2008 - [LLVMdev] Apple's GCC and .s/.S files in llvm-test (fwd)

On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Julien Lerouge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Apple's GCC does not make the distinction between .s and .S files and
> always run the preprocessor. From the man:
>
> |  file.s
> |      Assembler code. Apple's version of GCC runs the preprocessor  
> on these
> |      files as well as those ending in .S.
> |
> |  file.S
> |      Assembler code which must be preprocessed.
Yes.  The reason for this is that MacOS supports some non-case- 
sensitive filesystems, so .s and .S are not in general distinguishable.
> The problem is that sometimes llc generates comments in the assembly
> that look like this for x86:
>
> 	...
>        pushl   %esi
> 	...
> 	# implicit-def: EDI
> 	...
>        ret
>
> The comment line is perfectly valid for the assembler, but the
> preprocessor does not like it because it tries to interpret it as a
> macro... I can see it happening for example if -std=c99 is set in the
> CFLAGS (that's the case in SingleSource/Regression/C++) :
>
>  $ gcc --std=c99  -o t t.s
>  t.s:5:4: error: invalid preprocessing directive #implicit
>
> One solution is to force the language to be assembler (and not
> assembler-with-cpp) on Darwin, that's what the attached patch does,  
> but
> maybe there is a nicer solution ?
In general I think we want llvm-gcc's output .s files to be acceptable  
as input to gcc, so the right thing is to change the x86 asm printer  
so it doesn't generate these comments.   I don't see a good way to do  
full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and if  
you don't.  (Using #pragma works since compilers are required to  
ignore unknown pragmas, but nobody would call that good.)  If we're  
willing to build in the assumption that the preprocessor will be  
run, // or /**/ comments work.  Or attaching them to the end of the  
previous line works.

On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
[...]
>   I don't see a good way to do
> full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and if
> you don't.

Could you use "##" instead of "#"?

	Daveed

On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Julien Lerouge wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Apple's GCC does not make the distinction between .s and .S files
and
>> always run the preprocessor. From the man:
>>
>> |  file.s
>> |      Assembler code. Apple's version of GCC runs the preprocessor
>> on these
>> |      files as well as those ending in .S.
>> |
>> |  file.S
>> |      Assembler code which must be preprocessed.
>
> Yes.  The reason for this is that MacOS supports some non-case- 
> sensitive filesystems, so .s and .S are not in general  
> distinguishable.
I'm skeptical.  The case of the extension comes from the user, the  
user _knows_ what language the file is in.  The user can be obligated  
to get the case right.

Also, on darwin, the filenames are case preserving, meaning, the  
filesystem can even track the language directly as encoded by the  
filename, .s, no cpp, .S, run cpp.

I'm be tempted to eject this and see what breaks, then get them to fix  
it.

On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:18 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> [...]
>>  I don't see a good way to do
>> full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and if
>> you don't.
>
>
> Could you use "##" instead of "#"?
Pragmatically, that works (as I'm sure you know).   Digging into the  
legalities of C99 I'm not sure that it's guaranteed to work, though.    
Unknown directives actually match the "non-directive" case in the  
grammar in 6.10; while nothing is said anywhere about semantics that I  
can find, I'm not sure why gcc feels this should be a hard error at  
all....