alvinhochun marked an inline comment as not done. alvinhochun added a comment.
In D149579#4320765 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579#4320765>, @MaskRay wrote: > OK. I think after D149695 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149695> (landed), > D149920 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149920>, and this patch D149579 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579>, these cases should be correct. Thank you so much for looking into this! I have one question in inline comment. ================ Comment at: llvm/test/MC/X86/intel-syntax-branch.s:61-67 + // FIXME: MASM does not accept this syntax and GAS assembles this as a direct + // call/jump instead of indirect. Consider making this syntax an error? + call [offset fn_ref] + jmp [offset fn_ref] + // CHECK-32-LABEL: t7: + // CHECK-32: calll *fn_ref + // CHECK-32: jmpl *fn_ref ---------------- About the `call [offset fn_ref]` case, do you think we should reject it since MASM does not accept this syntax and GAS appears to behave oddly with it? The `ms-inline-asm-functions.c` test does generate `call [offset _kptr]` so this will also need to be changed. ================ Comment at: llvm/test/MC/X86/intel-syntax-branch.s:48 + call dword ptr fn_ref + jmp dword ptr fn_ref + // CHECK-32-LABEL: t5: ---------------- MaskRay wrote: > ICC and MSVC parse this differently. > > Is this syntax valid? MASM ml.exe assembles this as `jmp dword ptr [fn_ref]` in my test, so does GAS. I don't know how valid this syntax is though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149579 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
