similar to: [LLVMdev] "masm syntax" for X86 backend

On Aug 3, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi Chris, > > It would be good to get to try to get it as functional as possible > at some point, before abandoning it..maye once I have one the COFF > backend. I'm not proposing to remove COFF support from the asmprinter, just masm support. Using gas will continue to work fine. > Anyway I wll report back when I have

It would be nice to be able to use clang/llvm without GNU toolchain dependencies. Just out of curioisty what does the --x86-asm-syntax=intel actually mean then? Does this not get used? Is this a different syntax than the AT&T variety (forgive me if this is an obvious question)? I tried downloading FASM last night and it seemed handle some of the output, the one thing it didn't like was

On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t >> syntax >> assemblers. It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and >> MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler. This is why visual >> studio >> doesn't go through it. Long term, we'd like

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

> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax > assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is > not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio > doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to write out .o > files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF

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

> 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 >

On Aug 3, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Aaron Gray wrote: > 2009/8/3 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > >> Anyway I wll report back when I have a proper overview of the > area, > >> it would be good if you could also look into the problem so contact > >> me back if you are, also it maybe a good idea to share this with > >> Anton and Evan.

2009/8/3 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > >> Anyway I wll report back when I have a proper overview of the area, > >> it would be good if you could also look into the problem so contact > >> me back if you are, also it maybe a good idea to share this with > >> Anton and Evan. > > > > I already spoke to anton. The MASM

>On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Gaster, >Benedict<Benedict.Gaster at amd.com> wrote: >> I would like to use the LLVM x86 code generator to emit Intel syntax that >> is >> compatible with Microsoft’s MASM 9.x. Taking the TOT LLVM, from last >> week, I >> have found a number of changes that are required to make this work, most >> of >> which

Did pecoff support means we can linkage llvm generated obj files to msvc's obj files? 2010/1/22, Jim Crafton <jim.crafton at gmail.com>: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax >> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual

>>  Anyway I wll report back when I have a proper overview of the area, >> it would be good if you could also look into the problem so contact >> me back if you are, also it maybe a good idea to share this with >> Anton and Evan. > > I already spoke to anton.  The MASM support is clearly broken, it > generates .s files with typos for the directives and has other

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> By default, the cmake build generates Visual Studio project files for >> the X86 target only. Take a look at >> >> http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#llvmvars >> >> for learning how to build other targets. > > OK thanks, I'll look at that. > > In the meantime, is it possible to get the

On Monday 03 August 2009 14:04, Aaron Gray wrote: > 2009/8/3 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > > > >> Anyway I wll report back when I have a proper overview of the area, > > >> it would be good if you could also look into the problem so contact > > >> me back if you are, also it maybe a good idea to share this with > > >>

Hi LLVM'ers, has anyone read the license details for MASM32 and understood how these fit in with Open Source projects, especially GPL? - As far as I can see - no one is allowed to license projects under GPL or at worst other OS licenses nor the deritives of the project, if you're using MASM32. Are the MASM backend compatible with the MS version of MASM or other not so license

Here's the new MASM backend. It has the following files :- lib/Target/X86/X86AsmPrinter.h lib/Target/X86/X86AsmPrinter.cpp lib/Target/X86/X86MASMPrinter.h lib/Target/X86/X86MASMPrinter.cpp lib/Target/X86/X86.td lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td lib/Target/X86/makefile Makefile.rules win32/x86/x86.vcproj

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.

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

On Aug 3, 2009, at 12:15 PM, David Greene wrote: > I would really hesistate in removing this. All of the Intel and AMD > manuals > use this syntax. Again, I'm not talking about the syntax, I'm talking about MASM *directive support*. -x86-asm-syntax=intel will still spit out "intel syntax" instructions. -Chris

> The strainge thing is I believe VisualStudio can generate code through it > !:) That's only a belief :) vcpp-generated listings cannot be reassembled into objects via masm :( -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University