similar to: [LLVMdev] Intel asm

On Tuesday 16 June 2009 09:48, Aaron Gray wrote: > Appently the GAS Intel backend has flaws and does not work correctly anyway > so the X86IntelAsm backend is designed only to target MASM anyway. gas Intel syntax is indeed broken in LLVM. I'd love to make it work but my work has not (yet) allocated time for that. Maybe I can hack LLVM on the weekends. :) The above discussion leads

Hi Chris, > The LLVM X86 backend started out emitting intel mode for use with GAS > and it's "intel syntax mode" (which does use registers with %'s). > Unfortunately GAS has (or commonly available versions have) a number > of bugs in intel syntax mode (e.g. you can't define a function named > 'dword'), so we switched to using AT&T syntax. Ah, OK.

On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:12 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 09:48, Aaron Gray wrote: > >> Appently the GAS Intel backend has flaws and does not work >> correctly anyway >> so the X86IntelAsm backend is designed only to target MASM anyway. > > gas Intel syntax is indeed broken in LLVM. I'd love to make it work > but > my work has not

> On Tuesday 16 June 2009 09:48, Aaron Gray wrote: > >> Appently the GAS Intel backend has flaws and does not work correctly >> anyway >> so the X86IntelAsm backend is designed only to target MASM anyway. > > gas Intel syntax is indeed broken in LLVM. I'd love to make it work but > my work has not (yet) allocated time for that. Maybe I can hack LLVM on >

>> Here is a mod to X86 that allows GAS to be used with MS Visual C++. >> >> I introduces a 'forWindows' variable like 'forCygwin' in th >> X86SharedAsmPrinter class. >> > > A couple of comments: > > 1. Please send patches instead of full files. The best way to do this is > to use CVS like this: 'cvs diff -u' in the

I found a few fragments of threads in the internet ether where llvm folks talked about Intel vs. AT&T syntax. Apparently the project ran into trouble with name collisions when using Intel syntax (an example of a variable named "dword" was cited). I just tried dumping Intel syntax asm and assembling it with gas. It doesn't particularly like what llvm is putting out (comment

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >> The LLVM X86 backend started out emitting intel mode for use with GAS >> and it's "intel syntax mode" (which does use registers with %'s). >> Unfortunately GAS has (or commonly available versions have) a number >> of bugs in intel syntax mode (e.g. you can't define a function named >> 'dword'),

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> Right, presumably Wndows does not set the TT. Should Windows or MSVC++ >>> have one ? If so how do I go about it. Maybe Jeff should be involved ? >> >> It should/will. Currently there is no C/C++ front-end that works on native >> windows, but that doesn't really matter. In the future, we want to key off

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: > Here is a mod to X86 that allows GAS to be used with MS Visual C++. > > I introduces a 'forWindows' variable like 'forCygwin' in th > X86SharedAsmPrinter class. > A couple of comments: 1. Please send patches instead of full files. The best way to do this is to use CVS like this: 'cvs diff -u' in the directory

Yes, you are right. During my testings, I tried the llvm produced .S files with the gcc frontend and it compiled and linked them to the final executable. The problem is with the gcc and binutils licence. This is GPL and while this is ok for open source or for academic purposes, it can't be used on commercial projects. In fact one of the strong points of llvm (and clang) is its BSD like

Ok, less talk and more action. I just implemented proper Microsoft ML/MASM support. It probably has a few rough edges, so if anyone wants to try it out please do and let me know if you encounter any problems. Note that you cannot take a bytecode file created by llvm-gcc on Unix, move it to Windows, translate it to Intel syntax assembler, assemble it with ML and expect it to work.

>>> 1. Please send patches instead of full files. The best way to do this >>> is >>> to use CVS like this: 'cvs diff -u' in the directory that you care >>> about. You can also specify specific files to diff as well. >> >> Okay, I will do this in future, our posts crossed so I have not done that >> for the MASM backend. I will

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > We know. Someone offered to do the Intel version, but did little more than a > huge cut and paste of the AT&T version and then lost interest. No one else > has had the time or inclination to finish the (barely begun) job. Patches > accepted :) Actually, that's not true. The LLVM X86 backend started out emitting intel mode for

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: >> >> 1. Please send patches instead of full files. The best way to do this is >> to use CVS like this: 'cvs diff -u' in the directory that you care >> about. You can also specify specific files to diff as well. > > Okay, I will do this in future, our posts crossed so I have not done > that for the MASM

Jeff Cohen wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: >> >>>>>> Sure, but presumably you want to differentiate between nasm and >>>>>> masm (if they are not compatible) right? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right >>>> >>>>

Van Dijck, Tom wrote: > Hey, > > I've been trying this for a couple days now, finding different assemblers and trying different options but I can't figure it out.. > I must be missing something very obvious. > > I got a simple "hello world" app in llvm, making the .bc file using 'llvm-as test.llvm -o=test.bc' works fine. > then I can use llvm-ld to

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.

Razvan, You're somewhat misinterpreting the GPL license. Using binutils as a dependency of LLVM does not require that they be linked into any distributable that might contain proprietary code. They can be shipped as separate, purely-GPL'd executables that are called via the command line, thereby avoiding the whole "infection" problem. This is, for instance, how

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> The only thing I did not like was a clsh between the enum X86 and the new >>> namespace X86, which I had to rename as x86 :( >>> >>> Anyway, I suppose the lower case 'x' in 'x86' fits in with the lowercase >>> 'llvm' namespace. >> >> I'm not sure I follow. X86 is a

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