llvm dev - Jan 2010 - [LLVMdev] how to compile asm output for x86 with Micorsoft's ML

> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t
syntax
> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is
> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio
> doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to
write out .o
> files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF support, that
would be
> very nice :)
Crapola. I was afraid that was going to be the case. This was
originally something to do to have fun playing with Objective C, I'm
not sure PECOFF support would fall under that :)  Any idea how nasty
that would be?
Oh well, I guess the idea of doing this on windows isn't going to
happen anytime soon.


Cheers

Jim

>
> -Chris
>

On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote:
>> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other
at&t
>> syntax
>> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and  
>> MASM is
>> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual  
>> studio
>> doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to
>> write out .o
>> files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF support, that
>> would be
>> very nice :)
>
> Crapola. I was afraid that was going to be the case. This was
> originally something to do to have fun playing with Objective C, I'm
> not sure PECOFF support would fall under that :)  Any idea how nasty
> that would be?
> Oh well, I guess the idea of doing this on windows isn't going to
> happen anytime soon.
Why not just install the cygwin assembler?

-Chris

Did pecoff support means we can linkage llvm generated obj files to
msvc's obj files?

2010/1/22, Jim Crafton <jim.crafton at gmail.com>:
>> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other
at&t syntax
>> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM
is
>> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual
studio
>> doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to
write out
>> .o
>> files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF support, that
would
>> be
>> very nice :)
>
> Crapola. I was afraid that was going to be the case. This was
> originally something to do to have fun playing with Objective C, I'm
> not sure PECOFF support would fall under that :)  Any idea how nasty
> that would be?
> Oh well, I guess the idea of doing this on windows isn't going to
> happen anytime soon.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Jim
>
>
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-- 
从我的移动设备发送

         此致
礼
罗勇刚
Yours
    sincerely,
Yonggang Luo

It would be nice to be able to use clang/llvm without GNU toolchain
dependencies. Just out of curioisty what does the
--x86-asm-syntax=intel actually mean then? Does this not get used? Is
this a different syntax than the AT&T variety (forgive me if this is
an obvious question)?

I tried downloading FASM last night and it seemed handle some of the
output, the one thing it didn't like was the string variable. It
complained about

	mov	DWORD PTR [ESP], ($_.str)

something about "$_.str" wasn't kosher.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote:
>
>>> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other
at&t syntax
>>> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and
MASM
>>> is
>>> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual
studio
>>> doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be
able to write out
>>> .o
>>> files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF support,
that would
>>> be
>>> very nice :)
Regarding the pecoff support - FASM comes with complete source and
what appears to be a BSD license. It outputs to pecoff. Assuming the
FASM code is readable and reasonably understandable, could this code
be used as a starting point for adding pecoff support? Isn't it the
case that when llvm gets to this phase, all the optimizations have
been done, everything else is complete, the only thing left is just
outputting to assembly or some other format right? Perhaps I'm being
hopelessly optimistic, but if that were the case that doesn't sound
like it would be that hard. Of course what do I know? :)

Cheers

Jim

> Did pecoff support means we can linkage llvm generated obj files to
> msvc's obj files?
You can do this right now. Object file format is fully compatible.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University