No, it's correct. Some assemblers prefer 'd' for double-word, some
'l' for long-word. This just works around some inconsistency in the
Apple assembler.
Evan
On Jan 25, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Reid Spencer wrote:
Evan,
I don't know anything about this stuff, but looking at the pattern, it
seems a mistake may have been made? Consider these:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 20:27 -0600, Evan Cheng wrote:
void X86ATTAsmPrinter::printMachineInstruction(const MachineInstr
*MI) {
++EmittedInsts;
+ // This works around some Darwin assembler bugs.
+ if (forDarwin) {
+ switch (MI->getOpcode()) {
+ case X86::REP_MOVSB:
+ O << "rep/movsb (%esi),(%edi)\n";
+ return;
REP_MOVSB = rep/movsb
+ case X86::REP_MOVSD:
+ O << "rep/movsl (%esi),(%edi)\n";
+ return;
REP_MOVSD != rep/movsl
is this a mistake?
+ case X86::REP_MOVSW:
+ O << "rep/movsw (%esi),(%edi)\n";
+ return;
+ case X86::REP_STOSB:
+ O << "rep/stosb\n";
+ return;
+ case X86::REP_STOSD:
+ O << "rep/stosl\n";
+ return;
and this one?
+ case X86::REP_STOSW:
+ O << "rep/stosw\n";
+ return;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
+ }
Reid.
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
