Currently "<type> ptr <reg name>" treated as <reg name> in MS inline asm, ignoring the "<type> ptr" completely and possibly ignoring the intention of the user.
Fixed llvm to produce an error when encountering "<type> ptr <reg name>" operands.
For example: andpd xmm1,xmmword ptr xmm1 --> andpd xmm1, xmm1
though andpd has 2 possible matching formats - andpd xmm, xmm/m128
Patch by: ziv.izhar@intel.com
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14607
llvm-svn: 254607
Instructions like 'fxsave' and control flow instructions like 'jne'
match any operand size. The loop I added to the Intel syntax matcher
assumed that using a different size would give a different instruction.
Now it handles the case where we get the same instruction for different
memory operand sizes.
This also allows us to remove the hack we had for unsized absolute
memory operands, because we can successfully match things like 'jnz'
without reporting ambiguity. Removing this hack uncovered test case
involving 'fadd' that was ambiguous. The memory operand could have been
single or double precision.
llvm-svn: 216604
The existing matcher has lots of AT&T assembly dialect assumptions baked
into it. In particular, the hack for resolving the size of a memory
operand by appending the four most common suffixes doesn't work at all.
The Intel assembly dialect mnemonic table has ambiguous entries, so we
need to try matching multiple times with different operand sizes, since
that's the only way to choose different instruction variants.
This makes us more compatible with gas's implementation of Intel
assembly syntax. MSVC assumes you want byte-sized operations for the
instructions that we reject as ambiguous.
Reviewed By: grosbach
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4747
llvm-svn: 216481
Marina Yatsina