search for: entryvecti

Hi David, Thanks for your efforts here. I have a few comments on your patch, although I realise it's still a work in progress. +class ConstantPool { + MCSymbol *Label; + typedef std::vector<const MCExpr*> EntryVecTy; Use a SmallVector here? + MCSymbol *getLabel() {return Label;} + size_t getNumEntries() {return Entries.size();} + const MCExpr *getEntry(size_t Num) {return

Hi Amara, Thanks for your suggestions. I have made the changes you suggested and added a new test to check that we print an error when parsing a non-ldr mnemonic with an operand containing `=`. The updated patch is attached. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: Amara Emerson

Moving discussion to llvm-commits now that I have a more developed implementation: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131111/195401. html > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of David Peixotto > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:09 AM > To: 'Amara Emerson' >

I have attached an initial patch that implements the ldr pseudo. It still needs some clean up and more tests, but I would like some feedback on the approach I used and if there are any objections to implementing it this way. Here is my approach: Add a finishParse() callback to the target asm parser This callback is invoked when the parse has finished successfully. It will be used to write out

Hi David, Maybe I’m just blind, but where’s the code to handle the .ltorg directive? Is that a separate patch, maybe? Without that, this is not going to be usable in any circumstance using subsections-via-symbols. +typedef std::map<const MCSection *, ConstantPool> ConstantPoolMapTy; This feels odd to me. Can you elaborate a bit more on the data structure choices?? I would have expected

In an earlier email[1] I proposed adding support for the ldr pseud-instruction to the ARM integrated assembler. After some discussion the overall consensus seemed to be that it was worth adding. One concern was that we needed to have adequate testing. I promised to provide more details on what the behavior should be and provide some tests before starting the implementation. The FileCheck-ified