search for: assemblers

So I'm new to using wine. I recently purchased a used macbook, and installed wine to see if I could get System Architect 3.0 to run. System Architect is a program to allow plugging into various amplifiers and dbx Driverack units to make changes on your computer more than what you can do on the limited menu of the unit. Installing wine was fine (I used macports to install), and upon trying to

...ertainly sounds more *useful*. :) > > -Chris It's not that I am dead set against supporting any other assembler, it's just these sort of discussions always seem to degenerate into "hey, we should support assembler X that I really like!", where X ranges over a large set of assemblers. The overwhelming majority of LLVM users couldn't care which assembler is used so long as everything "just works." Heck, they don't care if an assembler is used at all. In fact, they would be happier with LLVM if none were, as LLVM would then run faster. I'd rather all...

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > >> >> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >> >> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html > > That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now,

...'ll stop and disclaim that I'm strongly in favor of the former.  I've tried to describe the pros/cons of each, but my perspective is definitely biased.) The difference between the two is a huge amount of complexity, and a very fundamental correctness risk.  The basic problem is that assemblers have to handle unconstrained inputs, and IMO, the semantics of assembler as used in practice is so under specified that it's really hard to infer semantics in any useful way.  As a couple of examples, is the fault behavior of an instruction well defined?  Is the label near an instruction u...

...> details of this. It's probably because it's first mission is to be a > compiler back-end, but the common wisdom is that gas is bare-bones and > masm is featureful. Clearly that doesn't hold for what LLVM needs, > and > you imply it's true for the whole family of assemblers that use Intel > syntax. Very surprising to those of us (well, me anyway) with minimal > time writing actual assembly. The long term plans are to finish the integrated assembler. We currently have active work to finish the assembler for Macho X86 32/64 targets. I suspect that ELF will...

Short version: If the integrated assembler accepted assembly strings as input, more targets could take advantage of integrated assembly. The longer version: For a given assembly statement, my out-of-tree target has complex instruction selection logic -- more so than the in-tree targets. This target uses variable length instructions and a laborious hierarchy of tblgen AsmOperands to do the job.

> > The more important question is: why would you want to do that? What > problem are you trying to solve? As weird as it sounds, I'm looking for multiplatform assembly languages. I want to learn assembly, but I want my knowledge and code to carry over no matter which operating system I'm using. I regularly use Windows, Mac, and Linux, and I don't want to have to rewrite my

GCC-style inline assembly is notoriously hard to write correctly, because it is the user's responsibility to tell the compiler about the requirements of the assembly (inputs, output, modified registers, memory access), and getting this wrong results in silently generating incorrect code. This is also dependent on register allocation and scheduling decisions made by the compiler, so an inline

Dear llvm developers, I am trying to run clang assembler to use avx instructions on Mac. I use gcc 4.7.1 to generate .s files from .c files. I can assemble foo.s by clang -c -x assembler foo.s to get foo.o but clang -c -x assembler foo_long.s fails with $clang -x assembler foo_long.s foo_long.s:27:2: error: invalid instruction mnemonic 'vcvttsd2siq' vcvttsd2siq %xmm0,

...39;m curious about the details of this. It's probably because it's first mission is to be a compiler back-end, but the common wisdom is that gas is bare-bones and masm is featureful. Clearly that doesn't hold for what LLVM needs, and you imply it's true for the whole family of assemblers that use Intel syntax. Very surprising to those of us (well, me anyway) with minimal time writing actual assembly. Is any of this documented somewhere I can just go off and read, or is it just lore in the LLVM community? Dustin

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >>> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >>> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >>> >>> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html >> >> That's

Has anyone converted llvm/projects/test-suite to use the llvm assembler instead of gcc? If so, what was needed to change and how? My assumption is that this would be a good way to test the llvm assembler. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121015/a91a495f/attachment.html>

Hi all, I am using the inline assembly expressions( which are different from Module Level Inline Assembly) and have some doubts about how do the assembly expressions affect the optimization passes. I inserted an inline assembly for a particular instruction and I assume that this instruction affects the Data Flow. Thus I want to make sure that no pass should move any instruction across this

...f this. It's probably because it's first mission is to be a >> compiler back-end, but the common wisdom is that gas is bare-bones and >> masm is featureful. Clearly that doesn't hold for what LLVM needs, >> and >> you imply it's true for the whole family of assemblers that use Intel >> syntax. Very surprising to those of us (well, me anyway) with minimal >> time writing actual assembly. > > The long term plans are to finish the integrated assembler. We > currently have active work to finish the assembler for Macho X86 32/64 > targets....

Let me see if I understand the response ;-) When you are saying integrated assembler do you mean llc --filetype=obj? If so, we currently have that for an option when running the test-suite. When you say that to test the llvm-mc assembler for your target you don't substitute the gcc assembler invocation for llvm-mc which would expect the resultant executable run to pass. Instead you have to

Hi -- I'm still very much a newbie with llvm, but am looking (hopefully) to use it to compile into native intel code a set of source that is a combination of byte codes for my own custom vm and intel code that has been coded in assembly language directly. In an earlier exchange, I already discovered that llvm does not do any optimizations on intel assembly language code. This would be an

TL;DR: If I'm trying to define new assembler directive syntax to support DWARF v5, it seems like a good idea for all the various assemblers out there in the world to support the same syntax. How would I go about negotiating that syntax with other assembler providers? Is GNU as the only really relevant one? Long version: DWARF v5 introduces a couple of new features in the .debug_line section that require assembler syntax, because the...

...a cross-project discussion). - Dave On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:16 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: TL;DR: If I'm trying to define new assembler directive syntax to support DWARF v5, it seems like a good idea for all the various assemblers out there in the world to support the same syntax. How would I go about negotiating that syntax with other assembler providers? Is GNU as the only really relevant one? Long version: DWARF v5 introduces a couple of new features in the .debug_line section that require assembler syntax, because the...

Thank you for reminding me the notion of the basic block. Of course, I know all the assembly takes the form of BBs and is divided into units of BB. OK. It looks better for me to explain what I wanted to do more clear from the first. Actually, I am working on emitting out an assembly of VM by using LLVM. LLVM assembly looks similar with this VM assembly except BB. The VM assembly does not have the

Hi All, I have a question about relaxation stuff in MC assembler. I am encoding conditional branch instructions with PC relative address in assembler. I have met some tests with relative offsets over the instruction's address field. I think I need to change the conditional instruction to multiple instructions with basic blocks for else and then syntax and it should be done in assembler