search for: x86nasmasmprint

...tasks that need doing then I am open to that. I would suggest working on the AsmWriter to get it to emit directives that NASMW likes. This should just be a matter of doing the following steps: 1. Define a new subclass of X86IntelAsmPrinter in the lib/Target/X86/X86AsmPrinter class, name it X86NASMAsmPrinter or something. 2. In the subclass, change any behaviors that you don't like (e.g. change it to use the appropriate directives for NASM). 3. Add this option to the AsmWriterFlavor variable at the top of the file, so we can say "-x86-asm-syntax=nasm" 4. Modify X86TargetMach...

...I am open to that. > > I would suggest working on the AsmWriter to get it to emit directives that > NASMW likes. This should just be a matter of doing the following steps: > > 1. Define a new subclass of X86IntelAsmPrinter in the > lib/Target/X86/X86AsmPrinter class, name it X86NASMAsmPrinter or > something. > 2. In the subclass, change any behaviors that you don't like (e.g. > change it to use the appropriate directives for NASM). > 3. Add this option to the AsmWriterFlavor variable at the top of the file, > so we can say "-x86-asm-syntax=nasm" &...

>> I thought Whidbey would really be upto the job, obviously not. > > Well, we don't know until someone tries. Oh, well we have got a bug to report to Microsoft then ! I still may carry on implementing any mods on the VS2003 port over to 2005 so we know where we are with that. There may well be a second beta so it would be good to get any problems in and reported to Microsoft in

Aaron Gray wrote: >> GCC is smart enough to realize it doesn't return. That's because the >> declaration of abort() is decorated with __attribute__((__noreturn__)). >> >> So is GCC smarter than VC++? As it turns out, in VC++ the >> declaration of abort() is decorated with __declspec(noreturn). >> >> Whidbey is not stricter than 2003, it is