similar to: [LLVMdev] Disassembler Issue

The IMM3/IMM5 come from here X86RecognizableInstr.cpp 943 TYPE("SSECC", TYPE_IMM3) 944: TYPE("AVXCC", TYPE_IMM5) On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> hi, >> >> some instructions

Dear mailing list: the attached diff implements a table-driven disassembler for the X86 architecture (16-, 32-, and 64-bit incarnations), integrated into the MC framework. The disassembler is table-driven, using a custom TableGen backend to generate hierarchical tables optimized for fast decode. The disassembler consumes MemoryObjects and produces arrays of MCInsts, adhering to the

Hi Eli, Thanks for pointing to the CTLZ_ZERO_UNDEF “LibCall” implementation. I have not it in the version that I am currently using, so it’s nice to know that it’s implemented now. Incidentally, the CTLZ… implementation is IDENTICAL to what I am proposing for the Shifts. This is not just adding support for “out-of-tree-targets”, but giving consistency to the fact that we have perfectly defined

hi, some instructions mismatch between assembler & disassembler, like below. it seems this happens with all SSECC related instructions? thanks, Jun $ echo "cmpps xmm1, xmm2, 23" | ./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -assemble -triple=x86_64 --output-asm-variant=1 -x86-asm-syntax=intel -show-encoding .text cmpps xmm1, xmm2, 23 # encoding: [0x0f,0xc2,0xca,0x17] $

Hi All, I would like to have more details about this LLVM wished feature (taken from http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#misc_new): "Write a disassembler for machine code that would use TableGen to output MachineInstrs for transformations, optimizations, etc." The phrase refers to _native_ machine code? Any extra detail about this feature will be really appreciated, since I'm

> But where is the flat set? Maybe I can debug and check what is going on. The MCInstrDesc are in a table in lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCGenInstrInfo.inc of your build directory. > Some additional information: > > MCInst opcode: 0x7cb > Decode Index: 0x1e I had assumed this would have dissembled to '// Inst #234 = BC' which does have the branch flag set, but I think that

I've been working with the ARM backend's disassembler and working it out pretty heavily over the past several months, and have run into a bug involving the LDR instruction and all variants which use the T2I_ld multiclass. Codegen doesn't seem to trigger this issue, because either the correct variant is always selected, or certain combinations of parameters never occur, I haven't

Hi there! In the x86 disassembler I noticed an if-statement with a duplicated branch. Are these intended to be identical? Best regards, Nicolas Kaiser -- diff -ur llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c llvm-2.8/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c --- llvm-2.8.orig/lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86DisassemblerDecoder.c 2010-05-06 22:59:00.000000000 +0200

Hi Eli, First of all, please I would appreciate that you try to not confuse my limited use of English with stupidity or lack or criteria in other subjects. I’m not English native, so please keep that in mind. You have been significantly helpful in the recent past so please keep on. Interestingly, you made a mention of a related but not identical issue. It is true that most (or all) processors

Hi, I'm considering to use MC disassembler for ARM target in a binary translation project. However after trying some ARM binary and I find that there are a lot of instructions that the disassembler fails to to decoding. Could anyone give me some information about the maturity of ARM disassembler? Thanks! David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Jun 5, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Fan Dawei <fandawei.s at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm considering to use MC disassembler for ARM target in a binary translation project. However after trying some ARM binary and I find that there are a lot of instructions that the disassembler fails to to decoding. > > Could anyone give me some information about the maturity of ARM

On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:32 AM, James Molloy wrote: > Hi, > > I’m looking at the new ARM disassembler, and performing testing to see if there are any obvious bugs I can fix. Overall it looks really nice – I’ve only found one obvious bug that I’m packaging up a patch for now. Glad you're liking it! I haven't really done comprehensive testing yet—it passes all the decoding tests

Hi Sean, > the attached diff implements a table-driven disassembler for the X86 > architecture (16-, 32-, and 64-bit incarnations), integrated into > the MC framework. The disassembler is table-driven, using a custom > TableGen backend to generate hierarchical tables optimized for fast > decode. The disassembler consumes MemoryObjects and produces arrays > of

On 06/25/2013 04:46 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Hi Sid, > > This feels like it’s exposing too much of the disassembler internals > into the MCOperand representation. I’m not sure I follow why that’s > necessary. Can you elaborate a bit? > A packet contains 1-4 insns and until the contents of the entire packet are known the meaning of any individual insn is not known with 100%

I was away doing other things for a while, but I have an API patch separated out, which (in addition to being much smaller than past megapatches) corrects two issues Chris identified in his most recent set of patches: - First, it makes the API a good deal simpler. Now, you can instantiate a single MCDisassembler and, each time you want an instruction disassembled, you can simply pass

Hi Sid, This feels like it’s exposing too much of the disassembler internals into the MCOperand representation. I’m not sure I follow why that’s necessary. Can you elaborate a bit? -Jim On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Sid Manning <sidneym at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > I'm working on a disassembler for hexagon (vliw) architecture and I would like to add an additional operand type,

Other than the x86 disassembler effort, is there an ARM disassembler effort going on? It seems that there have been commits for weeks with messages like "add so-and-so instruction to ARM.td for disassembly purposes only"... -- Thanks, Shih-wei -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Sean Callanan wrote: > thanks for your comments. I'll respond to them individually. I've > attached a new revision of the patch that addresses them. Patch > built and tested against SVN 79487, with the additional attached fix > that fixes an Intel table bug. Thanks Sean, comments below. Are you sure you attached the updated patch? I

Hi all, I'm working on lldb to make it available to ppc64le, but the "step over" is not working for some cases. When debugging, I can see that the disassembler analyze some instructions forward, looking for a branch instruction (llvm/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/Disassembler/llvm/DisassemblerLLVMC.cpp:87 - "const bool can_branch = mc_disasm_ptr->CanBranch(inst);"), while

I'm working on a disassembler for hexagon (vliw) architecture and I would like to add an additional operand type, "kAux" to the MCOperand class. The reason for this is that each insn has parse bits which are not explicit operands and have differing meanings based on the insn's location within the packet and the number of insns inside the packet. In order for the disassembler