MaskRay wrote:
> Looks like we were able to fix code on our end and this here isn't needed.
> But maybe the current behavior isn't 100% ideal.
Thanks. I am abandoning this workaround.
> Here's what I think the situation currently is (please correct me if I'm
> wrong):
>
> * With clang-cl, you get intel assembly output by default with `/FA`. That's
> good.
> * With clang, you get AT&T assembly output by default with `-S`, and intel
> assembly output with -masm=intel. That's good.
> * With clang, the syntax for `asm()` is AT&T by default, and intel with
> -masm=intel. That's good.
> * With clang-cl, `__asm { ... }` blocks always use Intel syntax. That's good.
> * With clang-cl, the syntax for `asm()` is intel by default, and there's no
> way to change this. (This is now consistent between module-level assembly and
> function-local assembly. It's good that they're consistent, that's better
> than before.)
>
> The last point seems suboptimal to me. cl.exe doesn't support `asm()`, only
> `__asm {}`. So users that use `asm()` with clang-cl probably want to share
> that code with other platforms where they use `asm()` too.
>
> Ideally, clang-cl could use intel asm output by default, intel asm input for
> `__asm {}` blocks, but at&t style asm input for `asm()`. And ideally it could
> also offer a flag to opt in to intel style asm input for `asm()`. (And the
> pragma mentioned in
> [reviews.llvm.org/D113707](https://reviews.llvm.org/D113707) might be nice
> too.)
>
> Does that sound right?
>
> (I'm not saying you have to do any of this! Just want to check if we agree on
> this assessment of the state of the world.)
I agree with the analysis. The original bug for the improvement appears to be
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/34830#issuecomment-2000044039
I agree that AT&T input `asm()` and Intel output provides most convenience, but
I do feel it slightly strange and wonder whether users need an explicit command
line option to indicate this preference. @uweigand's
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95444 (which hasn't landed) seems appealing as well,
but I haven't read closely these patches.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85668
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
