Ah, sometimes things get lost. How about resubmitting the patch and cc'ing
me and grosbach at apple.com?
Thanks!
-eric
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yep, b.w using ARM's "alternative syntax" is broken.
Luckily, though LLVM
> bitcode doesn't compile to this form, and will always use a label
instead.
> Here's a patch that only acknowledges the broken instructions:
>
>
>
https://github.com/garious/llvm/commit/916c4badd816178da9fdbac5b5ed2331a7201f98
>
> I submitted this to llvm-commits a while back, but nobody replied. :(
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Vladimir Pouzanov <farcaller at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I came across a strange behaviour in the instruction printer for
Thumbv2:
>>
>> The instruction is 0xf000b800, which is a b.w #0
>>
>> LLVM returns it as b.w #-262144, which doesn't make any sense to
me.
>>
>> Should I consider it a bug?
>>
>> --
>> Vladimir Pouzanov
>> http://www.farcaller.net/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121227/c73686a3/attachment.html>