On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Why two bits? Couldn't we say that there are two dialects, the default is > ATT, and there is a bit to select the intel dialect?
I'm fine with that approach. > Do you expect us to ever need to have the IR model more dialects? I don't expect it, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities. Chad > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: > Ping. > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Chad Rosier wrote: > > > All, > > Following up on my previous post about MS-style inline assembly [1], the > > attached patches add support for a new inline assembly dialect function > > attribute. This new attribute is intended to be used by the backend to > > determine how the inline asm string should be parsed/printed. The llvm > > patch adds the attdialect and inteldialect attributes and also adds a test > > case to ensure the IR is correctly parsed, but there is no functional > > change at this time. The clang patch adds the attdialect attribute to > > GNU-style inline assembly statements with a test case. There was some > > discussion of adding an asmdialect attribute that accepted an optional > > argument (e.g., asmdialect "intel", asmdialect "att"), but this looks to > > add a great deal of complexity to the attribute handling with minimal > > benefit. > > > > Chad > > > > [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052356.html) > > > > <inline-asm-attr-clang.txt><inline-asm-attr-llvm.txt>_______________________________________________ > > cfe-commits mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
