jyknight added a comment. In D70157#1788418 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157#1788418>, @reames wrote:
> In D70157#1788025 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157#1788025>, @jyknight wrote: > > > > .push_align_branch_boundary [N,] [instruction,]* > > > > I'd like to raise again the possibility of using a more general region > > directive to denote "It is allowable to add prefixes/nops before > > instructions in this region if the assembler wants to", as I'd started > > discussing in https://reviews.llvm.org/D71238#1786885 (but let's move the > > discussion here). > > > James, I think this proposal is increasing the scope of this proposal too > much. It also ignores some of the use cases identified and described in the > writeup (i.e. the scoped semantics). I'm open to discussing such a feature > more generally, but I'd prefer to see a more narrowly focused feature > immediately. I do not intend that we expand the scope of the project to include any of the other features. All I want is to slightly consider surrounding features when adding the new assembly syntax. The situations where we want to avoid modifying a certain block of code are extremely likely to apply to //any// nop-or-prefix-introducing code modifications -- not just modifications resulting from branch alignment. So if we can make the directives annotating where such changes are allowable (and conversely, where they are not) generally-applicable, with a very minimal amount of work, that would be nice. I also don't understand what you mean by "it ignores [...] scoped semantics"? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
