MaskRay added inline comments.
================ 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 ---------------- alvinhochun wrote: > 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. Yes, I think we should reject `call [offset fn_ref]`. Confirmed with a MinGW dev (lh_mouse) that this is invalid. ================ 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: ---------------- alvinhochun wrote: > 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. LG. cl.exe compiles `void (*kptr)(); ... __asm call kptr;` to `call DWORD PTR _kptr`, so it seems that the bracket can be omitted. 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
