Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "operandtype_t".
Did you mean:
operandtype
2009 Aug 18
0
[LLVMdev] X86 Disassembler
...r opportunities to use the LLVM small container classes. For
instance, the "fOperands" ivar in RecognizableInsn.
8. While we're on that, please use "Instruction" or "Instr" instead of
"Insn" for consistency's sake.
9. You have types called "operandType_t", etc. We normally don't use
the "_t" suffix for types. Perhaps renaming them.
10. In the "static inline bool outranks(instructionContext_t upper,
instructionContext_t lower)", it would be good to assert that upper
and lower are strictly less than IC_max.
11. In...
2009 Aug 18
2
[LLVMdev] X86 Disassembler
Dear mailing list:
the attached diff implements a table-driven disassembler for the X86
architecture (16-, 32-, and 64-bit incarnations), integrated into the
MC framework. The disassembler is table-driven, using a custom
TableGen backend to generate hierarchical tables optimized for fast
decode. The disassembler consumes MemoryObjects and produces arrays
of MCInsts, adhering to the
2009 Aug 19
3
[LLVMdev] X86 Disassembler
...y
created. It is always set to point to CodeGenInstruction::OperandList.
> 8. While we're on that, please use "Instruction" or "Instr" instead
> of "Insn" for consistency's sake.
Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.
> 9. You have types called "operandType_t", etc. We normally don't use
> the "_t" suffix for types. Perhaps renaming them.
Fixed. Now for example operandType_t is OperandType.
> 10. In the "static inline bool outranks(instructionContext_t upper,
> instructionContext_t lower)", it would be good t...