similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [RFC, AsmParser] How to handle '$' like '.' ?

Jonathan <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > I try to create a backend to support AsmParser, but it hasn't the red part > as below. I find the Mips has this. Do you know how to make it appear? > > Jonathan > > #ifdef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER > #undef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER > // This should be included into the middle of the declaration of > // your subclasses

Hi, I try to create a backend to support AsmParser, but it hasn't the red part as below. I find the Mips has this. Do you know how to make it appear? Jonathan #ifdef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER #undef GET_ASSEMBLER_HEADER // This should be included into the middle of the declaration of // your subclasses implementation of MCTargetAsmParser. unsigned ComputeAvailableFeatures(uint64_t

Hi all, I am trying to compile with a minimal TestAsmParser class, but I get the following error. ---------------- [43/780] Linking CXX executable bin/llvm-mc FAILED: : && /usr/bin/c++ -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-missing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wno-comment -std=c++11

Hi Daniel, attached is a patch that pushes most of the object file specific parsing out of AsmParser and down into MachOAsmParser. This was done as a cleanup for the ELF work. I know that you're not happy with this approach, particularly the fact that as we add more object file formats and assembler dialects, it's going to cause a class explosion. But I was hoping that we could use this

The instruction mnemonics for the immediate forms of bit-test instructions including bt, btr and bts, btc do not work. llvm-mc barfs with: error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix This is highly user-unfriendly, since we can easily infer what the user meant by inspecting $imm and translating the instruction appropriately. Do it exactly as the Intel manual describes. Note that

Dear Developers, I compile a OpenCL kernel, FFT, in AMDAPP SDK v2.5 using clang 3.8 + libclc and assembling the code with lld (The LLVM linker). The assembly code contains the following assembly codes (and lots of other similar format assembly) that fails to be parsed by AMDGPUAsmParser. It seems to me that both are valid instructions after looking at the SI instruction spec. s_mov_b32 s0,

Hello With the latest LLVM from Subversion (rev48737 from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk) I'm getting make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj/lib/AsmParser' llvm[2]: Flexing Lexer.l llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Debug build /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error:

Hello, The recent renamings moved some IR-related files and directories to more logical places. Is there a plan to rename lib/AsmParser as well? This directory name is somewhat misleading, because the code in it parses IR. In fact, nothing mentions AsmParser in the code inside that dir, except the build files. The name creates a confusion with other AsmParser citizens of LLVM like

I'm trying to build a standalone assembler for Mips using AsmParser and I'm facing a problem with assembly directives. Mips assembler has following syntax for .set directive .set reorder or .set noreorder which allow/disallow assembler to change the order of instructions in the block that follows. As the implemented AsmParser requires .set directive to have the following syntax:

Hi, Imagine that your backend has valid asm instruction written like this: "%x mnem %y, %z" And user puts it as inline assembler: __asm__ ("%x mnem %y, %z"); It can not be parsed with current llvm asm parser, because it starts with % (moreover it has mnemonic in second place) Say you written pass, that makes it "mnem %x, %y, %z". Now this guy can be parsed, but

Hi All, I wrote a very crude and simple AsmParser for my backend. llvm-tablegen also generates asm-matcher .inc file without any error. I have included the .inc file in my class for AsmParser. However, while building llvm, in linking stage for LTO, i am getting error - undefined reference to functions - ComputeAvailableFeatures, MatchInstructionImpl, MatchRegisterName and

Now I see, that its to so trivial as I thought before. There are a lots of parser extensions that creates the symbols. And in each place we need insert add its location info. I also found that MCContext has several create symbols methods, but all these methods uses CreateSymbol private method. So I see two possible ways here: 1. To aggregate all GetOrCreate-like symbol methods inside the

On Nov 13, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Samuel Crow wrote: > Hello all, > > My partner was just debugging a project that had tried to call a > function without arguments in the code but the declaration wasn't > declared with a void parameter list. It failed with an assertion > that something was trying to ++ past the end of an ilist. > > I seem to remember Chris Lattner

Hello all, My partner was just debugging a project that had tried to call a function without arguments in the code but the declaration wasn't declared with a void parameter list. It failed with an assertion that something was trying to ++ past the end of an ilist. I seem to remember Chris Lattner saying when he made the hand written AsmParser that it wasn't intended to be very robust

On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, David Young <davidy at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > I’m trying to enable the hexagon LLVM assembly parser. It seem like there is a lot of work that has been done to make this parsing straightforward. > > But…. > Hexagon assembly does not follow the “Mnemonic Rx Rx …” format that is expected by the assembly parsing infrastructure,

Hi Jim, I did look at the ARMAsmParser and it seems to me that it is using a switch/case construct to change the opcode and the operands, but this construct may become too large eventually. I was wondering if it is possible to use isAsmParser only flag to call dedicated methods, like dedicated parsers for AsmOperands. Regards Vladimir ________________________________ From: Jim Grosbach [grosbach

Hi Vladimir, ARM does similar things for complex assembly pseudos. Have a look at the definition and use of AsmPseudoInst in the ARM backend. They’re not typically expanding to multiple “real” instructions, but that’s an implementation detail, not a constraint. -Jim On Oct 1, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Vladimir Medic <Vladimir.Medic at imgtec.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I'm working on llvm

Hi ES, From what I understand instruction parsing is divided into two parts: - Parsing an operand list (XXXAsmParser::ParseInstruction) - Turning the operand list into an actual instruction (XXXAsmParser::MatchAndEmitInstruction) The second part does the validation (e.g. how many operands, what kind, etc) while the first part only does the parsing. That's why I think in the first part

For VC++, I solved this by having bison/flex put the files into the obj directories. I also have it unconditionally regenerate the files if bison/flex is available, and copy them from src if they are not. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Vladimir A. Merzliakov wrote: > >> I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs >>

No solutions come to mind. Conflicts are conflicts and must be resolved manually. This situation should only occur if you change the .l/.y file and then update the .h/.cpp files after someone else has changed the .l/.y file and regenerated the .h and .cpp. That doesn't seem like a high frequency scenario that we need to worry about. Not sure there's much we could do even if it was. Reid.