Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
2011-Oct-21 18:05 UTC
[LLVMdev] Typo in IsLegalToCallImmediateAddr?
> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF?bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some reason I am always getting movl $256, %eax ## imm = 0x100 calll *%eax on darwin already, so I guess you are right, the correct would be isTargetELF() && TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static; Please include a test with the commit :-) Cheers, Rafael
2011/10/21 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>:>> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF? > > bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some > reason I am always getting > > movl $256, %eax ## imm = 0x100 > calll *%eax > > on darwin alreadyIIRC, we never use Static on Darwin targets. -Eli
Eli, Hm. There's a test in (CodeGen/X86/call-imm.ll) which uses darwin with relocation model static. It expects to use call-to-immediate. Is this in error? Should I disable this check? - pdox On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> 2011/10/21 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >>> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF? >> >> bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some >> reason I am always getting >> >> movl $256, %eax ## imm = 0x100 >> calll *%eax >> >> on darwin already > > IIRC, we never use Static on Darwin targets. > > -Eli >