uweigand added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: pengfei. Hi @hans , we're having some issues with using the AssemblerDialect mechanism to support both the GNU assembler and the IBM HLASM assembler in the SystemZ back-end. See also the discussion started here: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146875.html
One of the issues that showed up is what you're refering to above: > That flag however should not affect the *parsing* of inline assembly in the > program. I'm wondering why this is true. I mean, it is true that the flag currently does not affect parsing of inline asm, but I'm wondering whether it *should* be that way. Note that the `-x86-asm-syntax=intel` LLVM flag is used to implement the `-masm=intel` clang **command line option**, which exists also in GCC and where hopefully the two compilers should be compatible. But in GCC, that flag is documented to affect parsing of inline assembly just like it affects output. See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-10.2.0/gcc/x86-Options.html#x86-Options > -masm=dialect > > Output assembly instructions using selected dialect. Also affects which > dialect is used for basic asm (see Basic Asm) and extended asm (see Extended > Asm). Supported choices (in dialect order) are ‘att’ or ‘intel’. The default > is ‘att’. Darwin does not support ‘intel’. What is the reason for treating this differently in LLVM? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
