Until now curly braces could only be used in MS inline assembly to mark block start/end.
All curly braces were removed completely at a very early stage.
This approach caused bugs like:
"m{o}v eax, ebx" turned into "mov eax, ebx" without any error.
In addition, AVX-512 added special operands (e.g., k registers), which are also surrounded by curly braces that mark them as such.
Now, we need to keep the curly braces and identify at a later stage if they are marking block start/end (if so, ignore them), or surrounding special AVX-512 operands (if so, parse them as such).
This patch fixes the bug described above and enables the use of AVX-512 special operands.
This commit is the the clang part of the patch.
The clang part of the review is: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17766
The llvm part of the review is: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17767
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17766
llvm-svn: 262842
Fixing a crash caused by trying to merge a single-line asm statement with an asm block that follows it, e.g:
asm int 4
asm {
int 5
}
Now, only adjacent single-line asm statements that are not surrounded by braces will be merged into one asm call.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17496
llvm-svn: 261618
In MS inline asm syntax a label with '$' char produces an error, while in AT&T it does not.
In AT&T inline asm syntax Clang escapes the '$' char and replaces it with "$$". Adopted same approach for MS syntax.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15795
llvm-svn: 256545
Add MS inline asm support for structs that contain fields that are also structs.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15578
llvm-svn: 255890
Summary:
This fixes PR20023. In order to implement this scoping rule, we piggy
back on the existing LabelDecl machinery, by creating LabelDecl's that
will carry the "internal" name of the inline assembly label, which we
will rewrite the asm label to.
Reviewers: rnk
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4589
llvm-svn: 218230
If control falls off the end of a function after an __asm block, MSVC
assumes that the inline assembly filled the EAX and possibly EDX
registers with an appropriate return value. This functionality is used
in inline functions returning 64-bit integers in system headers, so we
need some amount of compatibility.
This is implemented in Clang by adding extra output constraints to every
inline asm block, and storing the resulting output registers into the
return value slot. If we see an asm block somewhere in the function
body, we emit a normal epilogue instead of marking the end of the
function with a return type unreachable.
Normal returns in functions not using this functionality will overwrite
the return value slot, and in most cases LLVM should be able to
eliminate the dead stores.
Fixes PR17201.
Reviewed By: majnemer
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5177
llvm-svn: 217187
These tests seem like an exception to the rule against assembly emitting
tests in clang. I made an LLVM side change that can only be tested by
setting up the inline assembly machinery that is only implemented by
Clang.
llvm-svn: 214552
Note that it's not clear whether this is the right behavior, please see
the review for the discussion.
Reviewers: rnk
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4577
llvm-svn: 214401
Summary:
This patch extends the __asm parser to make it keep parsing input tokens
as inline assembly if a single-line __asm line is followed by another line
starting with __asm too. It also makes sure that we correctly keep
matching braces in such situations by separating the notions of how many
braces we are matching and whether we are in single-line asm block mode.
Reviewers: rnk
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4598
llvm-svn: 213916
When parsing MS inline assembly, we note that fpsw is an implicit def of
most x87 FP operations, and add it to the clobber list. However, we
don't recognize fpsw as a gcc register name, and we assert. Clang
always adds an fpsr clobber, which means the same thing to LLVM, so we
can just use that.
This test case was broken by my LLVM change r196939.
Reviewers: echristo
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2993
llvm-svn: 204878
Marina Yatsina