search for: assembling

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

...n Windows, that is either again gcc or Visual Studio. Visual >> Studio also comes with an assembler, ml.exe, and users of Visual >> Studio will not appreciate being forced to download a different >> assembler. I doubt anyone else would either. Gas is perfectly happy >> assembling AT&T syntax, > > I agree with the above :) > >> so the only assembler that Intel syntax mode needs to support is >> Mircosoft's ml.exe. > > I agree that "the most useful assembler for intel syntax mode to > support is microsoft's ml.exe", but I...

...we build with gcc, that is gas. On Windows, that is either again gcc or Visual Studio. Visual Studio also comes with an assembler, ml.exe, and users of Visual Studio will not appreciate being forced to download a different assembler. I doubt anyone else would either. Gas is perfectly happy assembling AT&T syntax, so the only assembler that Intel syntax mode needs to support is Mircosoft's ml.exe.

...However, there was also a deeper disagreement on the original review threads (D70157 and others) which was never settled, and we seem to be at a point where this needs attention. In short, the question is how assembler support should be handled. The Choice The problematic use case comes when assembling user provided .s files.  (Instead of the more restricted output of the compiler.) Our basic choice is do we want to force a new directive syntax (and thus a source code change to use the new feature), or attempt to automatically infer where it's safe to insert padding? The options as I see...

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. >> "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many >> important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". > > Wow. It's perhaps too much of a

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,

On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. > "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many > important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". Wow. It's perhaps too much of a distraction, but I'm curious about the details of this. It's probably because

...that is gas. On Windows, that > is either again gcc or Visual Studio. Visual Studio also comes with an > assembler, ml.exe, and users of Visual Studio will not appreciate being > forced to download a different assembler. I doubt anyone else would either. > Gas is perfectly happy assembling AT&T syntax, I agree with the above :) > so the only assembler that > Intel syntax mode needs to support is Mircosoft's ml.exe. I agree that "the most useful assembler for intel syntax mode to support is microsoft's ml.exe", but I don't think it's true that...

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

I have one thing not clear to me. If the llvm diect generate object code. Then how about the llvm assembler processing llvm code with inline assembly? Indeed, it's seems now llvm is direct using gas syntax in the assembly code. And because it's generate .S files, so it can be manipulated by binutils. But there is one day, no binutils any further, how to deal with these inline assembly.

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

To pass the MD5 checksum to the assembler, I added a new optional clause to the .file directive: md5 "checksum" where checksum is the 16-byte checksum in hex. It's quoted because the assembler doesn't have a way to parse a 16-byte integer. Also this is the same syntax Reid invented for the CodeView equivalent. To convey the root source filename, I allow the file number on 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