On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 22:50, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > I've spent a couple of days poking at the llvm disassembler. > > As a general-purpose disassembler, it's less than ideal. > > (1) The disassembler is not "inclusive". You present it with > a specific cpu configuration, and anything that cpu does > not support is considered invalid. There is no "maximum" > configuration that attempts to decode any insn in the ISA. > > (2) All configuration is done via strings, so you can't > programatically tell what's supported. I think they're > expecting all of these strings to come from the > command line. > > (3) If you include a unrecognized cpu feature, an error is > printed to stderr. Which suggests that we would easily > wind up with problems between llvm versions. > > (4) "Probing" what is supported with a particular version is > done via "+help", which prints what is supported to stdout.
My contacts who work on LLVM suggest that upstream would probably be open to patches improving the API here, if we were interested in making the effort. thanks -- PMM
