uweigand added a comment. In D82862#2500717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862#2500717>, @hans wrote:
>> In D82862#2498785 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862#2498785>, @hans wrote: >> >>> The motivation for my change was really just to make ThinLTO compiles work >>> the same as non-ThinLTO ones. >>> >>> Maybe the fact that -x86-asm-syntax=intel doesn't affect inline asm is a >>> bug. I wasn't aware that Clang and GCC's -masm= flags behaved differently >>> in that way, but that certainly suggests there's a problem here. >> >> So I'm wondering, if I remove the above setAssemblerDialect line **and** >> revert this commit, we should have inline asm (both module-level and GNU >> function-leve) respect the target-selected asm dialect variant both for >> ThinLTO and non-ThinLTO, so they should match again. Would that also solve >> the problem you were originally tracking? > > Not completely, because clang-cl sets -x86-asm-syntax=intel to enable > intel-style asm in assembly listing output. We'd have to find another way of > doing that without affecting the inline asm dialect. So why do you want GNU inline asm for clang-cl anyway? I thought the whole point of clang-cl was to be compatible with the Microsoft Visual Studio compiler, which I understand only supports the MS asm syntax? 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
