similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-mc/AsmParser] Using validateTargetOperandClass in llvm-mc

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 all, I'm working on llvm assembler support for Mips and for a while I'm trying to solve a problem regarding complex macro instructions. As mips assembler supports macro instructions that can develop to more then one real instruction depending on the operand type(usually two or three) we can't use InstAlias to exploit tableGen generated code. Currently we expand these in

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

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:

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

Hi everybody. I found that there are some problems with symbol location in AsmParser. 1. We need to know where symbol was declared. 2. We need to know where symbol was defined first time. There are two ways: 1. Add helper table to the parser with additional symbol info. But it takes additional memory consumption. 2. Add user tag (void*) for MCSymbol object. As I understood MCSymbol can live

On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Carter, Jack wrote: > I'm trying to build a standalone assembler for Mips using AsmParser. > > Following the lead of X86, ARM and MBlaze I have run tblgen -gen-asm-matcher on Mips.td to produce tables and methods to aid the parser (MipsAsmParser.cpp) which is a stripped down ARM implementation. > > I am getting an assertion for what I believe are

Hi Jack, You're running into a fundamental problem with the current table generated asmmatcher. Specifically, wants to believe that assembly parsing is context insensitive, or at least close enough that operands can be parsed w/o knowing the context of the instruction. Its idea is to use the operand types to disambiguate which instruction should be selected. It sounds like MIPS 64vs.32 does

Hi Eric, as I was working on the same issues that are covered in your patch I also made a change in clang driver to pass this option to the assembler. Could you please review it and tell me your opinion? http://reviews.llvm.org/D6091 Thanks Vladimir ________________________________ From: Daniel Sanders Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:59 PM To: Eric Christopher; Vladimir Medic; llvmdev at

I'm trying to build a standalone assembler for Mips using AsmParser. Following the lead of X86, ARM and MBlaze I have run tblgen -gen-asm-matcher on Mips.td to produce tables and methods to aid the parser (MipsAsmParser.cpp) which is a stripped down ARM implementation. I am getting an assertion for what I believe are multiple register definitions with the same name. llvm-tblgen:

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

Hi Eric, The main thing we need to fix is that the selection between ELF32/ELF64 needs to depend on the ABI being N64 and not on whether we used a mips-linux-gnu triple versus a mips64-linux-gnu triple. So 'clang -target mips-linux-gnu' -mips64r2 -mabi=64' should produce an ELF64 and 'clang -target mips64-linux-gnu -mips32r2 -mabi=32' should produce an ELF32. In terms of code,

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.

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 01/24/2013 02:38 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Hello, > > on PowerPC and a couple of other platforms, the GNU assembler allows using > a stand-alone '$' as part of an expression, and interprets it to refer to > the current PC just like '.'. (You can still use '$' as part of > identifiers otherwise.) For compatibility, we need to model the same

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