Hi.
Hongyu Wang <wwwhhhyyy...@gmail.com> wrote:
3. are you intending to update the tests?
Yes, so could you tell me what does missing “_” means? I have some
trouble building darwin target for now.
Darwin uses a USER_LABEL_PREFIX of ‘_’ (there are a small number of targets
that do this).
So public symbols begin with _
In the case that you match like:
…. ^\n]*%xmm0[^\n\r]*k1
there’s no need to make any amendment (since the _ is covered by [^\n\r]).
if you need to match 16+k1 … then for targets using USER_LABEL_PREFIX,
it would need to be 16+_?k1 (so that it matches _k1 for them and k1 for
Linux)
OK?
(if you want me to test a potential patch on Darwin, that’s also fine).
==== As for the comments on the asm output.
1) it would seem that both comments can’t be correct (since they
contradict!)
2) AFAICT, None of the assemblers I use has any issue with either order
3) perhaps there’s no assembler in use that cares any more
4) clang produces symbol+offset for that case on Darwin (i.e. the same as
final.c).
That means the i386.c part should align with final.c, but I can't make the
decision, and I'm not sure if there is more failure in x86 tests with this
change.
agreed, it would need wide testing, and perhaps not urgent at this moment but
it would be nice to make things consistent; it helps with maintainance.
Iain
